Yeah, I'm full of shit. So far my life has been the same, I have never seen telekinesis. I will probably die at 80 and not see telekinesis with my eyes, you know why? Because it doesn't exist. Stop believing nonsensical garbage, is not helping you with anything, is it?
The claims you made do not follow each other and are not based in evidence: you never state that these tests are flawed, so what reason is there to reject them? Just because you were not a witness? Chain of claims made by you: I have never seen TK. I will never see TK. TK does not exist. Knowing about (the existence of) TK is not helpful or practical. You arguments never address the science. Not one of your arguments have ever addressed the evidence, you are covering up the results of these tests because you cannot explain them. I also linked to a test where the TK was recorded on video, but you did not care to see the tests since then you would NOT be able to claim that you have never seen TK. I don't care. As I said, you can claim whatever you want but in the end you know it doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Because if superpowers like those really existed everyone would know about them.
Is not like scientists are purposely hiding it from people, it's just that it doesn't exist.
 No, that does not follow, you cannot say that the existence of a thing is entirely based on popular belief. Many people like yourself have prejudices such that they would deny TK even when presented with scientific evidence. Go figure! Many people already believe in the supernatural, and parapsychology has a long history, and many eminent researchers believed in these ideas. The reason that most people do not know about the evidence is not important, the science stands by itself regardless of popular belief. To be rational means that you are capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented. You have not been able to do that, instead you propose a sort of bandwagon argument. How can it not exist when I have 2 tests that prove it? You are trying to cover up the results and say that TK does not exist but you refuse to address the experiments? No response? You are full of shit, Astargath! Yeah, I'm full of shit. So far my life has been the same, I have never seen telekinesis. I will probably die at 80 and not see telekinesis with my eyes, you know why? Because it doesn't exist. Stop believing nonsensical garbage, is not helping you with anything, is it? |
|
|
|
I can ask a similar question: what came before the universe? Why something instead of nothing?
All theories regarding the origin of the universe imply self-existence, so all theories are literally inconceivable!
Nonsense. I can conceive of time being a circle. You can conceive of the past being caused by the future? You are preaching nonsense. Prove it |
|
|
|
It's kinda like taking a look at nature, and assuming there is any evolution at all. Since evolution has never been seen happening, and anything that somebody says is evolution can be shown to be other things instead, all of evolution is a make-believe story. Now, if this were the only point against evolution, the odds that evolution was false would be astronomical. But add to it things like - the probability against the parts coming together, - Irreducible Complexity, - the fact that nature must have been smarter than scientists to be able to do what scientists can't, - machinery design of nature that points to an Intelligent Designer, - cause and effect programming, - entropy that shows that things devolve rather than evolve, - the fact that in the few cases where nature makes complex chemicals that it destroys them almost immediately, - and many other things that you can find when you Google search for them... shows that the entire probability against evolution is way beyond what science considers necessary for there to even be a chance that evolution happened. Evolution isn't just a hoax. It is a grand hoax.  - the probability against the parts coming together, (Which is what? What parts?) - Any and all the parts of anything that is considered to make up so-called evolution.- Irreducible Complexity, (Which is debunked, you can google it for yourself) - The debunking is simply talk-arounds, thereby debunking itself, and showing that evolution is not real.- the fact that nature must have been smarter than scientists to be able to do what scientists can't, (How is that a fact? Does nature have to be smarter than a scientist to create mountains?) - Yes. Mountains don't appear all over the place. But the DO exist. So, let a scientist make one. Or let someone show us the process whereby they were made. Nature must be way smarter to make something that scientists cannot... especially mountains and planets and stars and you-name-it... and so smart that science is only guessing about how all those things might have formed.- machinery design of nature that points to an Intelligent Designer, (I don't know what that means) - Of course you don't. You can't seem to see the machines in nature all around us. The simple lever that we use is being used by nature all over the place, both macro, and micro.- cause and effect programming, (?) - Science could not break the laws of physics and nature even in the hydrogen bomb. All they did was put together some cause and effect actions that they were caused to do by some other cause and effect... exactly as the cause and effect had them do it... according to the physics and laws of nature. Everything is programmed to exist and act the way it does by cause and effect. Our goal should be to find out what programmed the cause and effect process, and to find out if that programmer ever travels through time, back to the beginning, to remake it a little here and there.- entropy that shows that things devolve rather than evolve, (You do not understand entropy, stop mentioning it xd) - Basically, entropy is the changing of complexity into simplicity without the loss or gain of any of the components of either. Entropy is universal on Earth. The few things we can see off-planet show us that it is universal out there as well.- the fact that in the few cases where nature makes complex chemicals that it destroys them almost immediately, (Such as?) - My mistake. Nature doesn't make complex chemicals. No evolution.- and many other things that you can find when you Google search for them... (Everything you said can be googled and you can find rebuttals to everything lol) - The rebuttals are not rebuttals. They are talk, backwards talk showing things that do not happen in nature, talk-arounds, non-proven talk, etc. The so-called rebuttals are part of the science that shows evolution to be impossible. They are part of the evolution hoax, because they are not rebuttals at all.shows that the entire probability against evolution is way beyond what science considers necessary for there to even be a chance that evolution happened. Your arguments are not arguments, they are talk, backwards talk showing that they are false. Your arguments are simply talk-arounds therefore debunking themselves and showing that evolution is real If this is what you truly think, pick a point, and explain what is wrong with it. Using the words of other people to do this shows you do not personally, really know. If that is what you think, pick a rebuttal and explain what is wrong with it using your own words and not other creationists who just use the same flawed arguments. |
|
|
|
Your arguments are not arguments, they are talk, backwards talk showing that they are false. Your arguments are simply talk-arounds therefore debunking themselves If this is what you truly think, pick a point, and explain what is wrong with it. Using the words of other people to do this shows you do not personally, really know. They are all wrong unfortunately, It's just circular referencing leading to nowhere. Everything is already self-refuted. |
|
|
|
Your arguments are not arguments, they are talk, backwards talk showing that they are false. Your arguments are simply talk-arounds therefore debunking themselves |
|
|
|
It's kinda like taking a look at nature, and assuming there is any evolution at all. Since evolution has never been seen happening, and anything that somebody says is evolution can be shown to be other things instead, all of evolution is a make-believe story. Now, if this were the only point against evolution, the odds that evolution was false would be astronomical. But add to it things like - the probability against the parts coming together, - Irreducible Complexity, - the fact that nature must have been smarter than scientists to be able to do what scientists can't, - machinery design of nature that points to an Intelligent Designer, - cause and effect programming, - entropy that shows that things devolve rather than evolve, - the fact that in the few cases where nature makes complex chemicals that it destroys them almost immediately, - and many other things that you can find when you Google search for them... shows that the entire probability against evolution is way beyond what science considers necessary for there to even be a chance that evolution happened. Evolution isn't just a hoax. It is a grand hoax. - the probability against the parts coming together, (Which is what? What parts?) - Any and all the parts of anything that is considered to make up so-called evolution.- Irreducible Complexity, (Which is debunked, you can google it for yourself) - The debunking is simply talk-arounds, thereby debunking itself, and showing that evolution is not real.- the fact that nature must have been smarter than scientists to be able to do what scientists can't, (How is that a fact? Does nature have to be smarter than a scientist to create mountains?) - Yes. Mountains don't appear all over the place. But the DO exist. So, let a scientist make one. Or let someone show us the process whereby they were made. Nature must be way smarter to make something that scientists cannot... especially mountains and planets and stars and you-name-it... and so smart that science is only guessing about how all those things might have formed.- machinery design of nature that points to an Intelligent Designer, (I don't know what that means) - Of course you don't. You can't seem to see the machines in nature all around us. The simple lever that we use is being used by nature all over the place, both macro, and micro.- cause and effect programming, (?) - Science could not break the laws of physics and nature even in the hydrogen bomb. All they did was put together some cause and effect actions that they were caused to do by some other cause and effect... exactly as the cause and effect had them do it... according to the physics and laws of nature. Everything is programmed to exist and act the way it does by cause and effect. Our goal should be to find out what programmed the cause and effect process, and to find out if that programmer ever travels through time, back to the beginning, to remake it a little here and there.- entropy that shows that things devolve rather than evolve, (You do not understand entropy, stop mentioning it xd) - Basically, entropy is the changing of complexity into simplicity without the loss or gain of any of the components of either. Entropy is universal on Earth. The few things we can see off-planet show us that it is universal out there as well.- the fact that in the few cases where nature makes complex chemicals that it destroys them almost immediately, (Such as?) - My mistake. Nature doesn't make complex chemicals. No evolution.- and many other things that you can find when you Google search for them... (Everything you said can be googled and you can find rebuttals to everything lol) - The rebuttals are not rebuttals. They are talk, backwards talk showing things that do not happen in nature, talk-arounds, non-proven talk, etc. The so-called rebuttals are part of the science that shows evolution to be impossible. They are part of the evolution hoax, because they are not rebuttals at all.shows that the entire probability against evolution is way beyond what science considers necessary for there to even be a chance that evolution happened. Your arguments are not arguments, they are talk, backwards talk showing that they are false. Your arguments are simply talk-arounds therefore debunking themselves and showing that evolution is real |
|
|
|
It's kinda like taking a look at nature, and assuming there is any evolution at all. Since evolution has never been seen happening, and anything that somebody says is evolution can be shown to be other things instead, all of evolution is a make-believe story. Now, if this were the only point against evolution, the odds that evolution was false would be astronomical. But add to it things like - the probability against the parts coming together, - Irreducible Complexity, - the fact that nature must have been smarter than scientists to be able to do what scientists can't, - machinery design of nature that points to an Intelligent Designer, - cause and effect programming, - entropy that shows that things devolve rather than evolve, - the fact that in the few cases where nature makes complex chemicals that it destroys them almost immediately, - and many other things that you can find when you Google search for them... shows that the entire probability against evolution is way beyond what science considers necessary for there to even be a chance that evolution happened. Evolution isn't just a hoax. It is a grand hoax. - the probability against the parts coming together, (Which is what? What parts?)- Irreducible Complexity, (Which is debunked, you can google it for yourself)- the fact that nature must have been smarter than scientists to be able to do what scientists can't, (How is that a fact? Does nature have to be smarter than a scientist to create mountains?)- machinery design of nature that points to an Intelligent Designer, (I don't know what that means) - cause and effect programming, (?)- entropy that shows that things devolve rather than evolve, (You do not understand entropy, stop mentioning it xd)- the fact that in the few cases where nature makes complex chemicals that it destroys them almost immediately, (Such as?)- and many other things that you can find when you Google search for them... (Everything you said can be googled and you can find rebuttals to everything lol)shows that the entire probability against evolution is way beyond what science considers necessary for there to even be a chance that evolution happened. |
|
|
|
No, as you said, it just has to be more complex lol
Are you really trying to say that the universe and cause and effect are barely more complex than you are? Try tossing countless numbers of electrons, protons, and neutrons into existence in a cause and effect "pattern" and producing intelligence thousands of years later. Do you even know how to start to do this? God did it. His complexity is way beyond that of the resulting Universe He made. When did I say ''barely'' You said the thing that created the universe has to be more complex than the universe and I said, ok, then that thing only has to be more complex, that still doesn't show it's god, it just shows the thing that created it has to be more complex. It seems that badecker has given up, do you admit that you can't prove the existence of God now badecker or are you just trying to ignore me now. Silly boy. By your posts in Health and Religion, you accept that God exists. Yet you want to deny the scientific proof, even though any dny points you have, have been rebutted (they weren't really points at all). Are you operating on faith that you believe in God now? Get into the Bible and find out about Him, to strengthen the little bit of faith you have. You lost, just admit it. You said complexity proved god and you never explained how, you just said the creator has to be more complex than the universe, which does not prove god. See what a nice guy I am? I just found it for you: 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. I guess that's admitting you lost because whenever someone asks you a direct question about something that you can't answer, you just post the links. Nowhere in those links you explain how complexity proves God. Nobody is going to force you to look at or think about the answer to anything you ask. And often your questions is so extremely stupid that they don't deserve an answer. Why not? Because it is easily researchable on the Internet and elsewhere. In addition, you can't be serious in some of your questions. Why not? You often ask a question that has been answered one or two posts directly above... posts that you quote in your post in which you ask the questions. What? Does your mommy still spoon-feed you, too? The point is that you simply don't want to accept the science. So you play around with the words that describe the science. Wake up and see that long ago science proved that God existed... from the time of Newton or earlier. All the science since then that tries to prove that God doesn't exist has only served to strengthen the proof that He does. Ignoring the question does not prove your point. I said anything more complex than the universe can be the creator of the universe, not necessarily god and you have no rebuttal for that you just keep rambling and posting your links. Why do you assume that anything more complex than the universe can be the creator of it? You don't have a clue about that. What are you talking about, a rebuttal to what you said? People used to say the moon was made of green cheese. They didn't know, and you don't know. What are you going to do? Sit around all day and talk stupidity? And then ask why somebody doesn't rebut your stupidity? You are getting more and more like those Flat Earth people all the time. You are the one who keeps saying the creator has to be more complex, you are the one bringing complexity all the time and now you don't agree with it? The point was the anything, not the complexity. You are a troll, just out there to twist things around, because you are being paid to drag people away from God. Do you not agree that anything more complex than the universe can be it's creator? Read my lips. Just because something might be more complex than the universe, doesn't necessarily give it the ability to be the creator of the universe. For example. If the "something" happens to be one electron more complex than the universe, why would that necessarily make it a creator of anything? EDIT: BTW, there is no way to agree with much of anything you say. Why not? Because generally your statements are way too general to have much of any meaning at all. My statements are yours lol. You said the creator had to be more complex and I said a lot of things could be more complex not necessarily god. Then why do you suggest that I don't respond, when you go around asking questions that you have already answered? There is not necessarily any need to respond if you have already answered it. Because you are trying to prove god and you admit it doesn't have to be god so I guess that's the end of this. Thank you for admitting it. |
|
|
|
For me,this is only a part of the problem, because even so you could have the 200 concomitent mutation, it's only part of the problem when it come to explain the continuity through the whole chain of evolution, in sort that the first bacteria already have what it take to get to mozart, and there is still a sort of string of evolution which make that the "good" of those mutation cant always be known "a priori" only from the point it evolve from. It's impossible for a monkey to know what "good mutation" get to einstein. You obviously do not understand evolution. It usually happens to people that deny it, it's pretty funny actually. An animal does not need to know what a good mutation is nor can they actually hold on to it or anything because it seems that's what you are implying. Mutations just happen for a number of reasons, if it's a good mutation then it usually stays and if it's not it's usually neutral or affects it very little. The article assumes that all the beneficial mutations must occur consecutively with no other mutations occurring in the meantime. When one allows harmful mutations that get selected out along the way, 200 beneficial mutations would accumulate fairly quickly. The real world is quite a bit more complicated yet. In particular, large populations and genetic recombination via sex can allow beneficial mutations to accumulate at a greater rate. BUT there is more to evolution than mutation. A small percentage of mutations are beneficial, and selection can cause the beneficial mutations to persist and the harmful mutations to die off. The combination of mutation and selection can create new useful adaptations. |
|
|
|
No, as you said, it just has to be more complex lol
Are you really trying to say that the universe and cause and effect are barely more complex than you are? Try tossing countless numbers of electrons, protons, and neutrons into existence in a cause and effect "pattern" and producing intelligence thousands of years later. Do you even know how to start to do this? God did it. His complexity is way beyond that of the resulting Universe He made. When did I say ''barely'' You said the thing that created the universe has to be more complex than the universe and I said, ok, then that thing only has to be more complex, that still doesn't show it's god, it just shows the thing that created it has to be more complex. It seems that badecker has given up, do you admit that you can't prove the existence of God now badecker or are you just trying to ignore me now. Silly boy. By your posts in Health and Religion, you accept that God exists. Yet you want to deny the scientific proof, even though any dny points you have, have been rebutted (they weren't really points at all). Are you operating on faith that you believe in God now? Get into the Bible and find out about Him, to strengthen the little bit of faith you have. You lost, just admit it. You said complexity proved god and you never explained how, you just said the creator has to be more complex than the universe, which does not prove god. See what a nice guy I am? I just found it for you: 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. I guess that's admitting you lost because whenever someone asks you a direct question about something that you can't answer, you just post the links. Nowhere in those links you explain how complexity proves God. Nobody is going to force you to look at or think about the answer to anything you ask. And often your questions is so extremely stupid that they don't deserve an answer. Why not? Because it is easily researchable on the Internet and elsewhere. In addition, you can't be serious in some of your questions. Why not? You often ask a question that has been answered one or two posts directly above... posts that you quote in your post in which you ask the questions. What? Does your mommy still spoon-feed you, too? The point is that you simply don't want to accept the science. So you play around with the words that describe the science. Wake up and see that long ago science proved that God existed... from the time of Newton or earlier. All the science since then that tries to prove that God doesn't exist has only served to strengthen the proof that He does. Ignoring the question does not prove your point. I said anything more complex than the universe can be the creator of the universe, not necessarily god and you have no rebuttal for that you just keep rambling and posting your links. Why do you assume that anything more complex than the universe can be the creator of it? You don't have a clue about that. What are you talking about, a rebuttal to what you said? People used to say the moon was made of green cheese. They didn't know, and you don't know. What are you going to do? Sit around all day and talk stupidity? And then ask why somebody doesn't rebut your stupidity? You are getting more and more like those Flat Earth people all the time. You are the one who keeps saying the creator has to be more complex, you are the one bringing complexity all the time and now you don't agree with it? The point was the anything, not the complexity. You are a troll, just out there to twist things around, because you are being paid to drag people away from God. Do you not agree that anything more complex than the universe can be it's creator? Read my lips. Just because something might be more complex than the universe, doesn't necessarily give it the ability to be the creator of the universe. For example. If the "something" happens to be one electron more complex than the universe, why would that necessarily make it a creator of anything? EDIT: BTW, there is no way to agree with much of anything you say. Why not? Because generally your statements are way too general to have much of any meaning at all. My statements are yours lol. You said the creator had to be more complex and I said a lot of things could be more complex not necessarily god. |
|
|
|
How did humans get here on EARTH.. 1 we evolved because the EARTH made us this way.. 2 Aliens some how put us here.. 3 a man like being went ZAP and everything was so .. Can only be 3 outcomes.. Imagine a germ flying through space lands on a rock I.E our earth and then we humans come along.. We still evolved from this planet because with the different weather patterns and environmental changes we evolved to look like what we are today.. With a different environment who knows we might look so much different ?.. Still might be humanoid but look so much different .. So only can be 3 outcomes to how we come to be.. And 1 of the outcomes is called EVOLUTION THEORIES .. How did we evolved on this planet = EVOLUTION .. So now you can make your choice 1 2 OR 3 what is your choice ..  I choose the earth made us because of DNA proves the fact even more so.. 1. Evolution is scientifically impossible. 2. Where did the aliens come from? Were they created or did they evolve? Remember, evolution is impossible. 3. We see that mankind can't make any living thing from something inanimate. Therefore, it can't be some manlike being. God created all things, and made man, as well. 1.Prove it 2.They always existed like god 3.Abiogenesis 1. Simply Google many forms of "Is evolution impossible?" The results might have been talked around by evolutionists. But the the proofs that evolution is impossible have never been rebutted. 2. The vast complexity of the universe shows that if there were more than one being that created it, they were acting in such "tight" concert, that they were acting as one. One God. 3. Are you stating that man created abiogenesis? Man might have created the word "abiogenesis." But man never made actual abiogenesis work. 1. I did and all of them are refuted, like I refuted them here and you couldn't even answer to them lol 2. I don't know how you think complexity shows any of that, mind explaining? 3. Im stating that there are successful experiments where they have created organic molecules from non living matter. 1. There is nothing to answer. All, 100%, of the things that you talk about can be shown to be part of at least 1 operation other than evolution. None of them are proven to support evolution. None of them answer the probability point. 2. The GM company is one company. Yet it has many people and robots working for it. Together they make cars. If they tried to make cars without one goal in mind, they wouldn't be able to make them. Cars are too complex to be built with everyone deciding on his own course of action. They think together as one. They act together as one. They are one... one company. If they didn't work like this, the only cars we would have would be the ones that an individual can individually make. The universe is almost infinitely more complex than a car. Even if there were many makers of the universe and nature and everything in it, they acted together. One God. The Bible shows us that there is one God. Yet there are three persons in that God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). And there are the 7 Spirits of God (Revelations). But God is one God. 3. There are big differences between making organic molecules in the lab, simply manipulating some organic parts to make other organic parts, and making life. Making organic molecules in the lab is simply a form of intelligent design. All it points at in nature is an Intelligent Designer. Evolution doesn't exist. It is impossible. The whole story of evolution is a science fiction story. Getting people to believe it is causing them to fall for a hoax. 1.Literally all your arguments were debunked. The probability argument was shown to be wrong because of how it was calculated, did you not understand that part either? 2.Ehm ok? So you admit that it can be different makers. One company... full of people LOL. All the other religions also shows us there is a God, how is that useful? 3.There are yet it was done, you always claim it's impossible. 1. Your points talk around probability. They don't actually work with probability. All your points do is to distract from probability, and then call the distraction probability. 2. Different makers with car companies, and all kinds of things that mankind makes. One maker of the universe - God - whatever God is. 3. There are what? Yet what was done? What do I claim is impossible? Having trouble, aren't you. You can't seem to spell out what you are talking about. Your trouble shows that you are losing the battle. Otherwise you would express what you mean. My point is that the way the probability argument was calculated it's wrong because it assumes you need 200 beneficial mutations or it assumes that you need good mutations in a row and that also everything else has the same chance of happening. It is actually pretty easy to understand. Then again you can't refute it. You claimed that it is impossible to have life from non matter. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, only religious people have trouble accepting it. Two-hundred, shmoo-hundred. Two-hundred was only a simple example. The reality is way more complex. The little probability against 200 shows that the real probability is so great that it is the 200 times itself many times over. Words are not what they should be. We often assume many things into words. My claim was meant to be more like we cannot have spontaneously occurring life from inanimate substances without God. All - ALL - the evidence for evolution can be applied to non-evolution processes and operations, as well. Cause and effect - scientific law - shows that this is, in fact, what is happening. Evolution non-law is defeated by scientific law. And, all science knows this, if they only look at the fact. But like you, they want to ignore it. What it shows is that is wrong. If they knew the real one, why not use that instead of using a simple example that is flawed? |
|
|
|
No, as you said, it just has to be more complex lol
Are you really trying to say that the universe and cause and effect are barely more complex than you are? Try tossing countless numbers of electrons, protons, and neutrons into existence in a cause and effect "pattern" and producing intelligence thousands of years later. Do you even know how to start to do this? God did it. His complexity is way beyond that of the resulting Universe He made. When did I say ''barely'' You said the thing that created the universe has to be more complex than the universe and I said, ok, then that thing only has to be more complex, that still doesn't show it's god, it just shows the thing that created it has to be more complex. It seems that badecker has given up, do you admit that you can't prove the existence of God now badecker or are you just trying to ignore me now. Silly boy. By your posts in Health and Religion, you accept that God exists. Yet you want to deny the scientific proof, even though any dny points you have, have been rebutted (they weren't really points at all). Are you operating on faith that you believe in God now? Get into the Bible and find out about Him, to strengthen the little bit of faith you have. You lost, just admit it. You said complexity proved god and you never explained how, you just said the creator has to be more complex than the universe, which does not prove god. See what a nice guy I am? I just found it for you: 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. I guess that's admitting you lost because whenever someone asks you a direct question about something that you can't answer, you just post the links. Nowhere in those links you explain how complexity proves God. Nobody is going to force you to look at or think about the answer to anything you ask. And often your questions is so extremely stupid that they don't deserve an answer. Why not? Because it is easily researchable on the Internet and elsewhere. In addition, you can't be serious in some of your questions. Why not? You often ask a question that has been answered one or two posts directly above... posts that you quote in your post in which you ask the questions. What? Does your mommy still spoon-feed you, too? The point is that you simply don't want to accept the science. So you play around with the words that describe the science. Wake up and see that long ago science proved that God existed... from the time of Newton or earlier. All the science since then that tries to prove that God doesn't exist has only served to strengthen the proof that He does. Ignoring the question does not prove your point. I said anything more complex than the universe can be the creator of the universe, not necessarily god and you have no rebuttal for that you just keep rambling and posting your links. Why do you assume that anything more complex than the universe can be the creator of it? You don't have a clue about that. What are you talking about, a rebuttal to what you said? People used to say the moon was made of green cheese. They didn't know, and you don't know. What are you going to do? Sit around all day and talk stupidity? And then ask why somebody doesn't rebut your stupidity? You are getting more and more like those Flat Earth people all the time. You are the one who keeps saying the creator has to be more complex, you are the one bringing complexity all the time and now you don't agree with it? The point was the anything, not the complexity. You are a troll, just out there to twist things around, because you are being paid to drag people away from God. Do you not agree that anything more complex than the universe can be it's creator? |
|
|
|
How did humans get here on EARTH.. 1 we evolved because the EARTH made us this way.. 2 Aliens some how put us here.. 3 a man like being went ZAP and everything was so .. Can only be 3 outcomes.. Imagine a germ flying through space lands on a rock I.E our earth and then we humans come along.. We still evolved from this planet because with the different weather patterns and environmental changes we evolved to look like what we are today.. With a different environment who knows we might look so much different ?.. Still might be humanoid but look so much different .. So only can be 3 outcomes to how we come to be.. And 1 of the outcomes is called EVOLUTION THEORIES .. How did we evolved on this planet = EVOLUTION .. So now you can make your choice 1 2 OR 3 what is your choice .. I choose the earth made us because of DNA proves the fact even more so.. 1. Evolution is scientifically impossible. 2. Where did the aliens come from? Were they created or did they evolve? Remember, evolution is impossible. 3. We see that mankind can't make any living thing from something inanimate. Therefore, it can't be some manlike being. God created all things, and made man, as well. 1.Prove it 2.They always existed like god 3.Abiogenesis 1. Simply Google many forms of "Is evolution impossible?" The results might have been talked around by evolutionists. But the the proofs that evolution is impossible have never been rebutted. 2. The vast complexity of the universe shows that if there were more than one being that created it, they were acting in such "tight" concert, that they were acting as one. One God. 3. Are you stating that man created abiogenesis? Man might have created the word "abiogenesis." But man never made actual abiogenesis work. 1. I did and all of them are refuted, like I refuted them here and you couldn't even answer to them lol 2. I don't know how you think complexity shows any of that, mind explaining? 3. Im stating that there are successful experiments where they have created organic molecules from non living matter. 1. There is nothing to answer. All, 100%, of the things that you talk about can be shown to be part of at least 1 operation other than evolution. None of them are proven to support evolution. None of them answer the probability point. 2. The GM company is one company. Yet it has many people and robots working for it. Together they make cars. If they tried to make cars without one goal in mind, they wouldn't be able to make them. Cars are too complex to be built with everyone deciding on his own course of action. They think together as one. They act together as one. They are one... one company. If they didn't work like this, the only cars we would have would be the ones that an individual can individually make. The universe is almost infinitely more complex than a car. Even if there were many makers of the universe and nature and everything in it, they acted together. One God. The Bible shows us that there is one God. Yet there are three persons in that God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). And there are the 7 Spirits of God (Revelations). But God is one God. 3. There are big differences between making organic molecules in the lab, simply manipulating some organic parts to make other organic parts, and making life. Making organic molecules in the lab is simply a form of intelligent design. All it points at in nature is an Intelligent Designer. Evolution doesn't exist. It is impossible. The whole story of evolution is a science fiction story. Getting people to believe it is causing them to fall for a hoax. 1.Literally all your arguments were debunked. The probability argument was shown to be wrong because of how it was calculated, did you not understand that part either? 2.Ehm ok? So you admit that it can be different makers. One company... full of people LOL. All the other religions also shows us there is a God, how is that useful? 3.There are yet it was done, you always claim it's impossible. 1. Your points talk around probability. They don't actually work with probability. All your points do is to distract from probability, and then call the distraction probability. 2. Different makers with car companies, and all kinds of things that mankind makes. One maker of the universe - God - whatever God is. 3. There are what? Yet what was done? What do I claim is impossible? Having trouble, aren't you. You can't seem to spell out what you are talking about. Your trouble shows that you are losing the battle. Otherwise you would express what you mean. My point is that the way the probability argument was calculated it's wrong because it assumes you need 200 beneficial mutations or it assumes that you need good mutations in a row and that also everything else has the same chance of happening. It is actually pretty easy to understand. Then again you can't refute it. You claimed that it is impossible to have life from non matter. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, only religious people have trouble accepting it. |
|
|
|
For me it's similar to pow in bitcoin  Usually as well geometry and linear algebra I understand quickly, but statistic could never really make sense to me. But it's when shelby started to post about game theory, it occured to me how statistic can translate to"energy" or work. In the case of dna & cell, we see it's still small statstics , and even with all our intelligence we struggle to create it. It's same than hash power, even if the good hash is meaningless, and it's all statistic, if you want to create 20 good block in a row, it require determined high computing power. And you never get 20 good blocks in a row "by chance". To me it's bit the same with dna DNA = proof of intelligent work Thankfully your opinion is meaningless for the scientific community. If you have a good theory you can always publish it in any scientific journal. You don't need 20 good mutations in a row by the way. More like 2 billions. Your opinion is probably meaningless to anyone but your scientific community btw. If you have a good troll, you can always post it on the forum. My 2 cents are free 2 billions what |
|
|
|
For me it's similar to pow in bitcoin Usually as well geometry and linear algebra I understand quickly, but statistic could never really make sense to me. But it's when shelby started to post about game theory, it occured to me how statistic can translate to"energy" or work. In the case of dna & cell, we see it's still small statstics , and even with all our intelligence we struggle to create it. It's same than hash power, even if the good hash is meaningless, and it's all statistic, if you want to create 20 good block in a row, it require determined high computing power. And you never get 20 good blocks in a row "by chance". To me it's bit the same with dna DNA = proof of intelligent work Thankfully your opinion is meaningless for the scientific community. If you have a good theory you can always publish it in any scientific journal. You don't need 20 good mutations in a row by the way. |
|
|
|
No, as you said, it just has to be more complex lol
Are you really trying to say that the universe and cause and effect are barely more complex than you are? Try tossing countless numbers of electrons, protons, and neutrons into existence in a cause and effect "pattern" and producing intelligence thousands of years later. Do you even know how to start to do this? God did it. His complexity is way beyond that of the resulting Universe He made. When did I say ''barely'' You said the thing that created the universe has to be more complex than the universe and I said, ok, then that thing only has to be more complex, that still doesn't show it's god, it just shows the thing that created it has to be more complex. It seems that badecker has given up, do you admit that you can't prove the existence of God now badecker or are you just trying to ignore me now. Silly boy. By your posts in Health and Religion, you accept that God exists. Yet you want to deny the scientific proof, even though any dny points you have, have been rebutted (they weren't really points at all). Are you operating on faith that you believe in God now? Get into the Bible and find out about Him, to strengthen the little bit of faith you have. You lost, just admit it. You said complexity proved god and you never explained how, you just said the creator has to be more complex than the universe, which does not prove god. See what a nice guy I am? I just found it for you: 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. I guess that's admitting you lost because whenever someone asks you a direct question about something that you can't answer, you just post the links. Nowhere in those links you explain how complexity proves God. Nobody is going to force you to look at or think about the answer to anything you ask. And often your questions is so extremely stupid that they don't deserve an answer. Why not? Because it is easily researchable on the Internet and elsewhere. In addition, you can't be serious in some of your questions. Why not? You often ask a question that has been answered one or two posts directly above... posts that you quote in your post in which you ask the questions. What? Does your mommy still spoon-feed you, too? The point is that you simply don't want to accept the science. So you play around with the words that describe the science. Wake up and see that long ago science proved that God existed... from the time of Newton or earlier. All the science since then that tries to prove that God doesn't exist has only served to strengthen the proof that He does. Ignoring the question does not prove your point. I said anything more complex than the universe can be the creator of the universe, not necessarily god and you have no rebuttal for that you just keep rambling and posting your links. Why do you assume that anything more complex than the universe can be the creator of it? You don't have a clue about that. What are you talking about, a rebuttal to what you said? People used to say the moon was made of green cheese. They didn't know, and you don't know. What are you going to do? Sit around all day and talk stupidity? And then ask why somebody doesn't rebut your stupidity? You are getting more and more like those Flat Earth people all the time. You are the one who keeps saying the creator has to be more complex, you are the one bringing complexity all the time and now you don't agree with it? |
|
|
|
How did humans get here on EARTH.. 1 we evolved because the EARTH made us this way.. 2 Aliens some how put us here.. 3 a man like being went ZAP and everything was so .. Can only be 3 outcomes.. Imagine a germ flying through space lands on a rock I.E our earth and then we humans come along.. We still evolved from this planet because with the different weather patterns and environmental changes we evolved to look like what we are today.. With a different environment who knows we might look so much different ?.. Still might be humanoid but look so much different .. So only can be 3 outcomes to how we come to be.. And 1 of the outcomes is called EVOLUTION THEORIES .. How did we evolved on this planet = EVOLUTION .. So now you can make your choice 1 2 OR 3 what is your choice .. I choose the earth made us because of DNA proves the fact even more so.. 1. Evolution is scientifically impossible. 2. Where did the aliens come from? Were they created or did they evolve? Remember, evolution is impossible. 3. We see that mankind can't make any living thing from something inanimate. Therefore, it can't be some manlike being. God created all things, and made man, as well. 1.Prove it 2.They always existed like god 3.Abiogenesis 1. Simply Google many forms of "Is evolution impossible?" The results might have been talked around by evolutionists. But the the proofs that evolution is impossible have never been rebutted. 2. The vast complexity of the universe shows that if there were more than one being that created it, they were acting in such "tight" concert, that they were acting as one. One God. 3. Are you stating that man created abiogenesis? Man might have created the word "abiogenesis." But man never made actual abiogenesis work. 1. I did and all of them are refuted, like I refuted them here and you couldn't even answer to them lol 2. I don't know how you think complexity shows any of that, mind explaining? 3. Im stating that there are successful experiments where they have created organic molecules from non living matter. 1. There is nothing to answer. All, 100%, of the things that you talk about can be shown to be part of at least 1 operation other than evolution. None of them are proven to support evolution. None of them answer the probability point. 2. The GM company is one company. Yet it has many people and robots working for it. Together they make cars. If they tried to make cars without one goal in mind, they wouldn't be able to make them. Cars are too complex to be built with everyone deciding on his own course of action. They think together as one. They act together as one. They are one... one company. If they didn't work like this, the only cars we would have would be the ones that an individual can individually make. The universe is almost infinitely more complex than a car. Even if there were many makers of the universe and nature and everything in it, they acted together. One God. The Bible shows us that there is one God. Yet there are three persons in that God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). And there are the 7 Spirits of God (Revelations). But God is one God. 3. There are big differences between making organic molecules in the lab, simply manipulating some organic parts to make other organic parts, and making life. Making organic molecules in the lab is simply a form of intelligent design. All it points at in nature is an Intelligent Designer. Evolution doesn't exist. It is impossible. The whole story of evolution is a science fiction story. Getting people to believe it is causing them to fall for a hoax. 1.Literally all your arguments were debunked. The probability argument was shown to be wrong because of how it was calculated, did you not understand that part either? 2.Ehm ok? So you admit that it can be different makers. One company... full of people LOL. All the other religions also shows us there is a God, how is that useful? 3.There are yet it was done, you always claim it's impossible. |
|
|
|
A simple thing to show where I want to get at can be seen with the processus of sterilization .
We know that if we steriliize something, and isolate it from the world, it will be kept more or less intact, minus oxydation, or simple chemical reactions. Even if it contain already organic molecules more advanced than what we would find in the "primordial soup".
If abiogenesis would be so common, sterilization would be useless.
No one said it's common. It happened a long time ago where everything was different, that's why scientists tried to recreate all the variables. It's a small step in the right direction. Of course you people are never happy, you want them to actually create humans in 1 day. It's not that simple. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
