Bitcoin Forum
September 23, 2018, 07:21:39 PM *
News: ♦♦ New info! Bitcoin Core users absolutely must upgrade to previously-announced 0.16.3 [Torrent]. All Bitcoin users should temporarily trust confirmations slightly less. More info.
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 171 »
1  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The difference between science and religion on: Today at 11:30:17 AM

So he is also deaf.  I have asked you to ask him to post on this forum with no avail.

How about all you religious freaks ask him to eliminate the flesh eating bacteria?

He will not answer because he does not exist. lol.

Humm in a single post you managed to:

1) Demand others personally ask God to manifest before you.
2) Insist God eliminate a living species from the planet at your request.
3) Proclaim that God not does not exist.
4) Call believers of God freaks.
5) Break into laughter presumably at your own wit.

I don't see much point in further discussion. You clearly have made up your mind and show no interest in reflection or exploring the topic in a non superficial manner.

I will bow out of this thread and leave it to those with an interest in this flavor of discourse.

You are still here?

Did God create the flesh eating bacteria? Yes or no?

I bet you will dodge to answer this question.
2  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The difference between science and religion on: Today at 06:00:51 AM

Did your God create the flesh eating bacteria?  Yes or No please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrotizing_fasciitis


God does everything. ...
Cool

So he is responsible for inflicting pain and suffering?  Is he mental?

Remember the gist of what I said. God does what we ask Him, even though He does it His own way. That is why we have bad things and problem things. We asked for the wrong things.

What are you asking for when you reject Jesus-salvation - since Jesus-salvation is the only salvation that exists. When you reject, you are asking for destruction in the dissolution of this corrupt universe. So, when God gives you what you ask for, He is just being a Nice Guy and giving you something you couldn't get for yourself if you didn't ask for it.

Cool

So he is also deaf.  I have asked you to ask him to post on this forum with no avail.

How about all you religious freaks ask him to eliminate the flesh eating bacteria?

He will not answer because he does not exist. lol.
3  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The difference between science and religion on: Today at 02:04:59 AM

Did your God create the flesh eating bacteria?  Yes or No please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrotizing_fasciitis


God does everything. ...
Cool

So he is responsible for inflicting pain and suffering?  Is he mental?
4  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The difference between science and religion on: Today at 12:47:23 AM

You missed the point... Christians claim their god is omnibenevolent... which itself is a claim that god would prevent all evil from existing... it is not my argument, that is the Christian argument...


Yes and I replied highlighting the problems with this logic.

Omnibenevolence does not demand God prevent all evil from existing.

If he created everything, as you claim, he is ultimately responsible.  Flesh eating bacteria, HIV in babies etc.

He is a psychopathic criminal to "create" such a world.

Actually, that is another indication that the world was not created by any intelligent being.  

No intelligent being would create the world the way your God "created" it.

No mental gymnastics can help you here.  Face it.


But you of all people know that God created things perfect, and that it was mankind voluntarily and knowingly eating the fruit in the Garden that started the chain of destruction among people.

And here you are, knowing that God exists, and that God has provided salvation in Jesus, but making the destruction worse by not acknowledging Him, and by trying to talk others into not accepting Him.

So you prove that your atheism is simply a religion, and that science that believes unknown things (science theories) as truth, has turned science into a religion.

Cool

Did your God create the flesh eating bacteria?  Yes or No please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrotizing_fasciitis
5  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The difference between science and religion on: September 22, 2018, 07:16:38 PM

You missed the point... Christians claim their god is omnibenevolent... which itself is a claim that god would prevent all evil from existing... it is not my argument, that is the Christian argument...


Yes and I replied highlighting the problems with this logic.

Omnibenevolence does not demand God prevent all evil from existing.

If he created everything, as you claim, he is ultimately responsible.  Flesh eating bacteria, HIV in babies etc.

He is a psychopathic criminal to "create" such a world.

Actually, that is another indication that the world was not created by any intelligent being. 

No intelligent being would create the world the way your God "created" it.

No mental gymnastics can help you here.  Face it.
6  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The difference between science and religion on: September 21, 2018, 05:22:28 PM
So I guess his 1755 earthquake in Lisbon (on All Saints day when all people were in church, the tallest buildings in the city) was a practical joke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake

Nice going God...

Need I go on?  AIDS in newborns, flesh eating bacteria, cancer, birth defects...The list is endless of "his" creations.

The sooner you realize that there are natural forces at work, not the supernatural the better, for your own sanity.  Continue to ignore the obvious, it does not matter what you folks believe, the nature will continue to evolve, regardless of your belief in the Jewish Zombie myth.


Of course there are natural forces at work and yes they are a source of tragedy and suffering. In the larger scheme, however, such evils are the result of our ignorance and natural frailty they are also a very small relatively unimportant portion of the true evil that humanity suffers from.


The Three Kinds of Evil
https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/the-god-papers/34-the-three-kinds-of-evil/
Quote from: Rabbi Jack Abramowitz
There are three kinds of evil in the world. The first is based on the fact that man is a physical and temporal being. Because of this, we are subject to physical ailments, whether based on weaknesses in our own constitutions or exposure to harmful agents in our environments. But creation and destruction go hand in hand; the same temporal nature that requires us to ultimately perish is also what enables us to come into existence. We therefore see that our physical nature, with all its limitations, is the result of God’s kindness. And, despite our limited natures, evils of this type are relatively rare. Most people are in fairly good health and physical defects are rather uncommon.

The second type of evil is the kind that people inflict on one another, such as by physically abusing others. These are greater in number than the first kind of evil but they are still not ubiquitous. It’s pretty uncommon for a person to scheme to rob or kill his neighbor. Large numbers of people can be affected by this kind of evil in wars but, again, these are relatively infrequent in the big picture of all inhabited countries.

The third kind of evil is the type that a person inflicts upon himself. This is the largest category of evils, far greater in number than those in the second class. Only a few people are not guilty of this kind of self-inflicted harm. This type of evil is spoken of by such prophets as Malachi (1:9 – “this has been of your doing”). King Solomon also wrote of it in Proverbs. For example, in 6:32 it says, “one who does this destroys his own soul,” while 19:3 tells us that “the foolishness of man perverts his way.” Solomon also discussed this topic in Koheles (Ecclesiastes). In 7:29 he tells us, “God has made man upright but they have come up with many thoughts.” These thoughts bring evil upon man.
The evils that a person brings upon himself are because of his vices, such as a desire for more food, drink and sex than is actually necessary. People engage in too much of these things, or they enjoy them inappropriately, and it causes them both physical and spiritual injury. Since the soul resides in the body, if one accustoms himself to superfluous amenities, he simultaneously conditions his soul to crave unnecessary things. This is especially bad when you consider that actual necessities are relatively few in both number and required quantities, while superfluous things are potentially without number.

People’s thoughts can become so twisted that they’re in constant agony over their inability to acquire as much silver or gold as someone else. They will expose themselves to great danger in order to acquire things they don’t really need. When they come to ruin through their own decisions, they blame God. They curse the circumstances they blame for their inability to acquire as much wine, women and song as money could buy as if the world exists solely for their gratification. Some go so far as to disparage God, saying the if He were able, He surely would have created a world more fair than this one.

Wise people, on the other hand, live their lives consistent with the words of King David in Psalms 25:10, “All the paths of God are mercy and truth to those who keep His covenant and His testimonies.” Those who keep their own role in the universe in context see God’s mercy and truth in everything. Rather than railing against God’s judgment, they seek to better understand His ways. Their needs are modest – food and clothing in limited quantities – and they are happy with their lot. In truth, all the self-inflicted injuries stem from a desire for that which is unnecessary, so that man cannot be satisfied that his actual needs have been met.

If I had a son and I would disappear when my son was born, then I would tell him (in his dream) to worship me, kill other animals including humans in my name, and I would send all imaginable diseases so that he suffers pretty much all his life, send all imaginable natural disasters so that his family is killed and he suffers, and yet I would tell him to trust me, because I love him and I have prepared hell for him when he dies if he does not do what I tell him to do, would I be a good father?

Someone needs to call the Child Protective Services on this God of yours. LOL. 

This idea that God created evil to test us is as ridiculous as the idea of the God itself.  This whole notion is unnatural.  No sane human being would want to harm his/her children, yet God somehow finds it entertaining to do just that.  Is your God mentally unstable?

Think about before you regurgitate someone else's ideas.

PS. Never mind God's commands to own slaves, subjugate women, kill gays and nonbelievers or even people who work on Sabbath.  

 
7  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The difference between science and religion on: September 21, 2018, 02:48:49 PM

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.


Actually the latest science says that a religious upbringing improves children's health into adulthood.

Religious upbringing may be protective factor for health, well-being in early adulthood
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2018/09/17/raising-kids-with-religion-or-spirituality-may-protect-their-mental-health-study/#68c6ba2c3287


Belonging to a social club, meditating and exercising all have the same effect, without a boogie man or Santa Claus.  Not sure what your point is.

I would not hire anyone who believes that Earth is 6000 years old, or believes that the religious scriptures are the "word of God", no matter how happy and social they are.

People who believe those things lack critical thinking skills and have poor judgement.


You can't do anything without God - not even belong to a social club - because He penetrates everything if only for the purpose of holding it all in existence. Go to the Scientific proof that God exists? thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0 - to see that God exists, and how He controls everything.

People who do not understand that the Earth in its present, general physics form is only about 6,000 years old, might have skills that make them worth hiring, even if they have a different religion than you.

Cool

So I guess his 1755 earthquake in Lisbon (on All Saints day when all people were in church, the tallest buildings in the city) was a practical joke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake

Nice going God...

Need I go on?  AIDS in newborns, flesh eating bacteria, cancer, birth defects...The list is endless of "his" creations.

The sooner you realize that there are natural forces at work, not the supernatural the better, for your own sanity.  Continue to ignore the obvious, it does not matter what you folks believe, the nature will continue to evolve, regardless of your belief in the Jewish Zombie myth.
8  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The difference between science and religion on: September 21, 2018, 12:43:17 PM

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.


Actually the latest science says that a religious upbringing improves children's health into adulthood.

Religious upbringing may be protective factor for health, well-being in early adulthood
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2018/09/17/raising-kids-with-religion-or-spirituality-may-protect-their-mental-health-study/#68c6ba2c3287


Belonging to a social club, meditating and exercising all have the same effect, without a boogie man or Santa Claus.  Not sure what your point is.

I would not hire anyone who believes that Earth is 6000 years old, or believes that the religious scriptures are the "word of God", no matter how happy and social they are.

People who believe those things lack critical thinking skills and have poor judgement.
9  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The difference between science and religion on: September 21, 2018, 03:18:06 AM
....
As for religions adapting, well, they don't have a choice.  They cannot kill all the scientists.  They tried, but failed.

Religion tried to kill all the scientists? Where was that?

...

Have you been living under a rock? Or you are just pretending to be an innocent, ignorant, religious buffoon?

To answer your question, it was during inquisition, there was an open hunting season on all scientists.

What they did to Giordano Bruno is mind boggling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Just google it if you want the names. 

They tried to silence science back then, now they are trying to push their narrative in science classrooms with their "biblical science" curriculum.

Science will advance forward and push religions out to become footprints in the history books. 

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.

10  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The difference between science and religion on: September 21, 2018, 01:30:34 AM
Well, sorry to have to correct you, but religion seems to also evolve. Not necessarily in directions I/you/we would like.

I get your point, but only partly agree with it. Religion, as you detailed in your post, is impacted by 'local cultural practices'; for example, someone born in the Middle East is likely to be raised a Muslim, whereas someone born in Ireland is likely to be raised Catholic. This doesn't happen in science. What is true in Saudi Arabia is true in Ireland, or anywhere. Someone's religion is (99% of the time) directly linked to their place of birth, or at the very least, by those that raise them. This isn't true with science. So while I accept that religion has evolved, in some respects even diluted, it is only in how people choose to practice it or which 'almighty power' they worship.

Well, that's not exactly what I was thinking about. Here's an example. Catholics thought they'd have priests that didn't marry, but there were exceptions. Why? Because they had to make exceptions to get some groups to go with their plan.

Christianity had many opposed to "vivisection" in the 19th century and prior, but that's not an issue today.

Galileo, I think you know that story.

It's been noted regarding the American Indians, that those who had adaptable religions have survived, while those who had rigid precepts in their religions have not. Adaptable is of course a key to something surviving a variety of conditions for a long term.

Consider the following argument. If religion did not adapt, science would overshadow it and it would vanish. If it did adapt to new understandings, it would survive. That is assuming some innate human needs for services provided by religion of course.



Eventually, science will explain what causes people to believe in these ridiculous religious dogmas.  One day, science will figure out the cure so that people who suffer from this condition can get some help.

As for religions adapting, well, they don't have a choice.  They cannot kill all the scientists.  They tried, but failed.


11  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? on: September 19, 2018, 11:08:49 AM

I said "we don't know how the world came about".  Your story about the creator is just your vivid imagination working overtime.

My position is rational.  It is based on what we know (and what we know is backed by the data or by the lack of it).

Yours, well, not so much.

We are just rotating our statements. Your position is rational based on what you believed and that goes the same for me as well.

...

My position is based on facts (verifiable observations) so I don't have to believe. That is the difference between us.

12  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? on: September 18, 2018, 02:07:28 PM
~

Then you are way smarter than the creator, who already have proven something about in deep knowledge rather than you. However there is no difference at all since youre statement is also just an imagination or in a good term " theory".


I said "we don't know how the world came about".  Your story about the creator is just your vivid imagination working overtime.

My position is rational.  It is based on what we know (and what we know is backed by the data or by the lack of it).

Yours, well, not so much.
13  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? on: September 18, 2018, 11:35:50 AM
...apologetic babble...

Just a suggestion tho, try reading

"Does God Exist?: Can the existence of God be scientifically proved?" by Herbert W. Armstrong
That "might" just change the way how you think about life.

I downloaded it from here:

https://www.hwalibrary.com/cgi-bin/get/hwa.cgi?action=getbklet&InfoID=1407333256

Nothing more than the "God of the gaps" apologetic babble.  You and the author would not know what the confirmation bias is even if it drove through your brain.

As to how the universe was created, the answer is "We don't know."  We have some theories...

I can be certain of one thing.  If this universe was created as some sort of simulation by some advanced alien civilization, I can assure you they did not create a woman from men's rib 6000 years ago; horses cannot fly, virgins cannot get pregnant, animals cannot come back from the dead, etc.
14  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Christianity is Poison on: September 17, 2018, 12:11:18 PM
You do know that something becomes illegal when somebody says it is illegal, don't you? I mean, if a cop says "That's illegal," then it's illegal, right? But if you won't accept a cop, maybe a senator who gets together with other government people and say, "That's illegal," then its illegal, right?

Is it illegal if 10,000 people say, "It's legal," and 500 Congress people say, "It's illegal?"

That's not how it works... that's not how any of this works... where would you even get such ideas?  "somebody", "a cop", "a senator", cannot make things illegal just because they say so... we have laws... laws make things illegal

words matter... learn some

His delusion goes like this: "Only God's laws are valid laws.  Laws written by people are not just laws and should not be obeyed (I wonder where the Muslims got their idea about the Sharia Law).  Only the Bible laws should be obeyed as they were given by God."

He omits the part that the laws in the Bible were written by people (if you can call the Bronze Age psychopaths such).  The writers of the Bible decided what to put in and what to exclude, then in 325 AD some old cardinals decided what to include in the Bible.  And there you have the finished product, created by the people for the people.

BADecker, you know why God is not updating the Bible?  It is because all the potential Bible writers are drooling, heavily medicated in their mental wards.

These days psychiatrists can identify the conditions all the would be prophets, seers have.  I bet you every US state has at least one Jesus in their mental facilities.
15  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Evolution is a hoax on: September 17, 2018, 11:48:52 AM
That is true. Because if there is then we still witness those evolutions in these modern times but we don't. We only see abnormalities from animals and they don't really turn to a complete new form of creature.

The education system in your country has failed you.  You clearly do not know a single thing about evolution.

Just continue your Bible study and don't reproduce, please.
16  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Evolution is a hoax on: September 16, 2018, 05:46:39 PM

Are you retarded? Just checking, how much is 123+5=?, in base 118 system?

I asked you for an example of evidence that would convince you that evolution is true.  You cannot answer this question because you don't know much about evolution, don't you?


...

Now that we are familiar with DNA, find a critter with a beneficial mutation that is carried over thousands of years to a second one that has a second beneficial mutation that is carried over thousands of years to a third critter that has an additional beneficial mutation along with the previous two. That would be the start of real proof for evolution.

...
Are your sure you looked for it?

https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-9-302
https://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans
https://biologywise.com/beneficial-mutation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931526/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871816/
https://study.com/academy/lesson/beneficial-mutations-examples-effects.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/6801077

or just type beneficial mutations in google. ~20,400,000 pages on beneficial mutations.
17  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Evolution is a hoax on: September 14, 2018, 11:07:15 PM

What evidence would change your mind?

Are you attempting to make this a personal thing?

The only evidence would have to be proof. And it would have to come in the form of proving that science was false. Why? Because it is science that proves that evolution doesn't exist.

Cool

Can you answer the question or not?

What scientific evidence would convince you that the evolution is true?  



I answered the question. Can you read or not? Or is the problem you thinking ability?

 Cool

EDIT: Okay. Let me answer your question straight out. What scientific evidence would convince me that the evolution is true? The only scientific evidence that would convince me that evolution might be true, would be the same scientific evidence that proved that science was false.

And that is exactly what evolution theory does. It is scientific evidence that proves science is false. This means that I believe the theory exists, not evolution.

Are you retarded? Just checking, how much is 123+5=?, in base 118 system?

I asked you for an example of evidence that would convince you that evolution is true.  You cannot answer this question because you don't know much about evolution, don't you?
18  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Evolution is a hoax on: September 14, 2018, 08:45:46 PM

What evidence would change your mind?

Are you attempting to make this a personal thing?

The only evidence would have to be proof. And it would have to come in the form of proving that science was false. Why? Because it is science that proves that evolution doesn't exist.

Cool

Can you answer the question or not?

What scientific evidence would convince you that the evolution is true? 

19  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The difference between science and religion on: September 14, 2018, 04:09:25 PM
Nobody says science is perfect...
When science doesn't know the answer, scientists say, "I don't know", which is a much better answer than religious people pulling an answer out of their ass...
Exactly they can't answer everything  then the last thing you can think is there "might" or should" be someone who created everything and that is where the religion start to take actions.

Quote
I'd rather have someone say, "I don't know" than claim to have an answer they don't have, with no evidence to back up their claim.

Are you talking about theist?

Quote

If you want to know about evolution and where apes came from, google it... science has those answers... science can trace the path of human evolution for a billion years, basically since we were bacteria.  There is enough evidence to convince anyone if you simple look (obviously you have not looked)



If you are truly interested (you did ask the question after all), here is a video series by Aron Ra explaining it all to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW

Aron has compiled a series of 34 videos so far, tracing human evolution from bacteria to the current day... after 34 videos, he is almost up to where humans evolved... almost
I haven't watch the video yet but ok lets assume that this person is right. Did he explain where did the bacteria came from?

Quote
Why would you even expect science to have every answer to every question?  Is that a reasonable expectation?

Because it is also not reasonable to assume that a creator never existed based on the fact that not all things are explainable.


I think you decided to believe in nonsense because you NEED to have answer to everything.  Even if the answer is some supernatural being that created everything and is an answer to everything.

It is ok not to know how the first life came about.  Relax, take a deep breath, pick up a biology textbook, get to work.

That is why we have science.  To discover how the world works, to find out how that bacteria came about.

Remember, when something is not true, your belief in it will not change the outcome.

Supernatural beings do not exist, regardless of what people believe.  That is the reality.

Evolution is a fact. Earth is not flat.  Bible has been wrong all along.

PS.  That need to have answers is what drives religious folks to some batshit crazy ideas: 6 days creation, virgin conception, dome over flat Earth etc.
20  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Evolution is a hoax on: September 14, 2018, 01:49:10 PM
You seem to be the only one who has said anything about "tropic."

Evolution is a hoax, yes or no. Anybody can say a simple "yes" or "no." But simple yes or no isn't much of a discussion. In a forum we have discussion. That is why I bring in reasons to show that evolution is a hoax, and you attempt to bring in reasons to show why it isn't. Don't you even understand this about a forum, yet?

You have defined what a hoax is. Then you say that scientists believe. If a scientist believes something, isn't it true that he doesn't know? If he knew that evolution was real, he wouldn't have to believe that it was real. He would know that it is real.

Now, here is where the hoax part comes in. The scientists only believe. They don't know, and they know that they don't know. But they proclaim that evolution is real when they know it isn't. That is the hoax. The hoax is not knowing, but proclaiming that they know.

Since scientists don't know and yet hoax that they do, when the hoax is discovered, don't honest people start looking for the thing that is real? Then they see that the "higher power" idea fits the whole operation of nature far better than the evolution hoax. So, why suouldn't people start looking at the "higher power" idea?

The programming (C&E) stuff shows that evolution theory evolution (ETE) is not real. ETE doesn't talk about C&E in nature, but all we see is C&E in nature. Science knows that everything operates by C&E. But they don't seem to realize that there isn't any C&E in ETE. In other words, they don't want to recognize that ETE doesn't exist, as proven by C&E.

Are scientists that stupid? NO, of course not! They know that there isn't any C&E in ETE. They also know that the whole operation of nature works by C&E. So, they are hoaxing us when they say that ETE is real.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

I’m not in agreement with that. Believing in something to be true, does not qualify as a hoax, whether it is actually true or not. We just don’t know better. Knowing something is not true, and then spreading that as the truth, qualifies as a hoax.

Whether your take on Evolution ultimate turns out be correct, or my version, shared by the majority of people, or none of us,-  none of us qualifies for preforming a hoax. We believe what we are propagating to actually be the truth.

Again C&E shows no such thing, if fact it shows the direct opposite, Evolution is a fact. C&E is a transition state, not the tool. It required identical input to produce identical outputs. Never ever in the history of the Universe has identical inputs been available in two situations, thus never ever has the output been identical. Pure Random from the beginning of the Universe till now. Evolution is a fact.


If you are not a person who has found that evolution is false, evolution may not be a hoax for you. But science is open for everyone. All the scientists who have studied evolution know that it doesn't exist in the form of current evolution theory. Some of these scientists push evolution as being true, even though they know it isn't, necessarily. That's the hoax.

If they said - as a few of them have - "We CAN'T tell for sure that evolution exists," then those scientists are not the hoaxers. It's the ones that state that evolution is true and real, when they know that it might not be... those are the hoaxers. They have turned evolution into a hoax.



For example, suppose that metal detectors can only detect underground gold accurately down to 8 feet below the surface. And a scientist using a metal detector, detects gold 10 feet down. Has he really detected gold down there? No! Metal detectors can only detect gold 8 feet down.

What does the scientist do regarding what he has detected? He might say, "I have detected gold 10 feet down." Or he might say, "I think that I have detected gold 10 feet down." If he says he HAS detected the gold, he is a liar. Why? Because metal detectors only detect 8 feet down. If he spreads the lie, he is hoaxing people.



Regarding evolution, nobody has ever found that it exists, factually. There is not one piece of evidence that fits evolution theory enough to factually say that it is evolution. Or show us one, and line up all the points of the theory and explain how each point fits. You can't. They don't all fit.

So far, everything that is called evolution is a guess, fits adaptation better, fits like-begets-like better, or can be shown to be completely false, or even fits the creation idea better. Most scientists know this. Most of them even state it when they say modifying words like "if, we think, maybe, it's possible," and a whole host of other words that show that they do not know. But when you look in the books, evolution is touted as truth. Somebody is a hoaxer.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

What evidence would change your mind?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 171 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!