Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

Something did it. The laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us that whatever the "He" is, it fits the greatness of the definition of God.

Yeah something did it but how do you know it was god?

Thank you for asking this question again. People forget answers, and this prompts me to answer again.

It was God, because it fits our definition of God.

When you look at a car and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a toy manufacturer. It is a car maker.

When you look at a computer and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a burlap bag maker, it is a computer manufacturer.

Notice how the definition of a car manufacturer is "a business engaged in the manufacture of automobiles." Notice how a computer maker is a company that makes computers.

Because of the complexity and greatness of the universe (far beyond the complexity and greatness of a car or computer), Whatever the Maker of the Universe was, It/He was God, by definition. That's how we know that It/He was God. It's by the definition.

If you suggest that it was NOT God Who made the universe, the definition of whatever made the universe still is God, because it still fits the definition of "God."

If you say that a Klindgab made the universe, then you simply have designed a new word that means "God." If the Klindgab happens to be a corporation of multitudes of entities, then the Klindgab Corporation is God, by definition.

If you want to change the definition of "God," you certainly have that right. But in the same way that you have that right, others have the right to keep the definition. However, even if there is a new word that defines the universe, that new word means what the old word "God" meant when it was common.

You are playing with semantics. You are like the joker in that other thread who thinks that gravity isn't gravity, but rather is density. Gravity is gravity because it defines something that exists. The theory of why gravity exists, or what it is made up of, or the reasons why it works in the universe like it does... this theory does not change the fact that gravity is what it is, by definition.

Go ahead and put together a theory of all kinds of things about God. But "God" fits the Maker of the universe by definition.

It's as simple as that!

''the definition of whatever made the universe still is God'' Not really because I suggested that it could be a few different gods or a few different aliens so no, that does not fit the definition of god, so you lost.
You are using the complexity argument again after I debunked it, why are you doing this?

Again, you forget the simple idea of a corporation manufacturing cars. The corporation is made up of many people doing multitudes of jobs. If they don't work together as one, the pistons will be of different sizes. Not all the doors will fit the car. One window will be made of glass and another of plastic, and they will be of different shades. The car won't work.

Even if there are many entities in God, they all work together as one. And in the case of the complexity and interconnectivity of all the physics and parts of something as great as the universe, they would have to be One. That is what God is.

If your idea was that big bang made the universe, get together with Hawking, and figure out a theory of how there could be multitudes of big bangs, each one very different from every other, and still make a universe that has the same physics throughout.

Actually, this might have been done. But the complexity of such a theory wouldn't really be understandable in any way.

Astargath thinks he is God.

[1715112776]

1715112776

[1715112776]

1715112776

[1715112776]

1715112776

[BADecker]

I dont need science to prove there is God. Things around us are enough to prove there is and our very existence too. My heart can’t lie and i dont care if other people do not believe but i know and deep with in me i know He exists and is in control of everything.

This is very good. Why? Because scientists who try to prove major things about the universe wind up finding that they are not able. The evidence for this is in the foolishness of evolution theory, and gigantic incompleteness of big bang theory.

But, since this is a thread for seeking scientific proof for or against God, standard proof doesn't always fit the topic.

[MattF24]

My belief is simple, God exists in a different dimension. God is not with us here on Earth.

[Astargath]

Something did it. The laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us that whatever the "He" is, it fits the greatness of the definition of God.

Yeah something did it but how do you know it was god?

Thank you for asking this question again. People forget answers, and this prompts me to answer again.

It was God, because it fits our definition of God.

When you look at a car and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a toy manufacturer. It is a car maker.

When you look at a computer and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a burlap bag maker, it is a computer manufacturer.

Notice how the definition of a car manufacturer is "a business engaged in the manufacture of automobiles." Notice how a computer maker is a company that makes computers.

Because of the complexity and greatness of the universe (far beyond the complexity and greatness of a car or computer), Whatever the Maker of the Universe was, It/He was God, by definition. That's how we know that It/He was God. It's by the definition.

If you suggest that it was NOT God Who made the universe, the definition of whatever made the universe still is God, because it still fits the definition of "God."

If you say that a Klindgab made the universe, then you simply have designed a new word that means "God." If the Klindgab happens to be a corporation of multitudes of entities, then the Klindgab Corporation is God, by definition.

If you want to change the definition of "God," you certainly have that right. But in the same way that you have that right, others have the right to keep the definition. However, even if there is a new word that defines the universe, that new word means what the old word "God" meant when it was common.

You are playing with semantics. You are like the joker in that other thread who thinks that gravity isn't gravity, but rather is density. Gravity is gravity because it defines something that exists. The theory of why gravity exists, or what it is made up of, or the reasons why it works in the universe like it does... this theory does not change the fact that gravity is what it is, by definition.

Go ahead and put together a theory of all kinds of things about God. But "God" fits the Maker of the universe by definition.

It's as simple as that!

''the definition of whatever made the universe still is God'' Not really because I suggested that it could be a few different gods or a few different aliens so no, that does not fit the definition of god, so you lost.
You are using the complexity argument again after I debunked it, why are you doing this?

Again, you forget the simple idea of a corporation manufacturing cars. The corporation is made up of many people doing multitudes of jobs. If they don't work together as one, the pistons will be of different sizes. Not all the doors will fit the car. One window will be made of glass and another of plastic, and they will be of different shades. The car won't work.

Even if there are many entities in God, they all work together as one. And in the case of the complexity and interconnectivity of all the physics and parts of something as great as the universe, they would have to be One. That is what God is.

If your idea was that big bang made the universe, get together with Hawking, and figure out a theory of how there could be multitudes of big bangs, each one very different from every other, and still make a universe that has the same physics throughout.

Actually, this might have been done. But the complexity of such a theory wouldn't really be understandable in any way.

Astargath thinks he is God.

Because the corporation is ''one''? No it's not, it just a lot of people working together on something just like a lot of different gods or aliens could be working together WITHOUT BEING ONE, just a lot of them working together, SO NO YOU ARE WRONG, AGAIN.

You assume that evidence of design is an objective quality obvious to all viewers. In reality, the ability to discern design is largely a function of familiarity and cultural context. ''Not to mention the multitude of phenomena we now know are natural, but which in the past were explained through intelligent design or benevolent creation, such as the Giant's Causeway, the rock upon which the Kyaiktiyo Pagoda has been built, or the numerous legends explaining how various glacial erratics ended up in their current positions.''

To illustrate: when you walk through the woods and see a watch, you recognize it as designed not because of its complexity or by contrasting it with the surrounding nature, but because you have seen other watches and all of those watches have, to your knowledge, been engineered by people. It is also clearly not safe to judge whether or not an object is designed purely by its complexity. A perfectly smooth perfect sphere is an extremely simple shape. However, if you found a perfectly smooth perfectly spherical wooden ball in the woods, you would recognize it as most likely not having arisen naturally, but rather having been carved and sanded into that shape.

Again you are wrong, there is no way of knowing if the other things in nature are also designed. You lost, again.

[BADecker]

Something did it. The laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us that whatever the "He" is, it fits the greatness of the definition of God.

Yeah something did it but how do you know it was god?

Thank you for asking this question again. People forget answers, and this prompts me to answer again.

It was God, because it fits our definition of God.

When you look at a car and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a toy manufacturer. It is a car maker.

When you look at a computer and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a burlap bag maker, it is a computer manufacturer.

Notice how the definition of a car manufacturer is "a business engaged in the manufacture of automobiles." Notice how a computer maker is a company that makes computers.

Because of the complexity and greatness of the universe (far beyond the complexity and greatness of a car or computer), Whatever the Maker of the Universe was, It/He was God, by definition. That's how we know that It/He was God. It's by the definition.

If you suggest that it was NOT God Who made the universe, the definition of whatever made the universe still is God, because it still fits the definition of "God."

If you say that a Klindgab made the universe, then you simply have designed a new word that means "God." If the Klindgab happens to be a corporation of multitudes of entities, then the Klindgab Corporation is God, by definition.

If you want to change the definition of "God," you certainly have that right. But in the same way that you have that right, others have the right to keep the definition. However, even if there is a new word that defines the universe, that new word means what the old word "God" meant when it was common.

You are playing with semantics. You are like the joker in that other thread who thinks that gravity isn't gravity, but rather is density. Gravity is gravity because it defines something that exists. The theory of why gravity exists, or what it is made up of, or the reasons why it works in the universe like it does... this theory does not change the fact that gravity is what it is, by definition.

Go ahead and put together a theory of all kinds of things about God. But "God" fits the Maker of the universe by definition.

It's as simple as that!

You assume that evidence of design is an objective quality obvious to all viewers. In reality, the ability to discern design is largely a function of familiarity and cultural context. ''Not to mention the multitude of phenomena we now know are natural, but which in the past were explained through intelligent design or benevolent creation, such as the Giant's Causeway, the rock upon which the Kyaiktiyo Pagoda has been built, or the numerous legends explaining how various glacial erratics ended up in their current positions.''

Why do you assume that I assume.

Isn't it obvious that I can't assume something like that? I mean, look at how many times I have to explain the same thing over to you. If I assumed obviousness, I would simply pass all your talk off as a joke on your part, wouldn't I?

Because of the machine-nature of all natural things, all natural things were designed.

[BADecker]

Something did it. The laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us that whatever the "He" is, it fits the greatness of the definition of God.

Yeah something did it but how do you know it was god?

Thank you for asking this question again. People forget answers, and this prompts me to answer again.

It was God, because it fits our definition of God.

When you look at a car and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a toy manufacturer. It is a car maker.

When you look at a computer and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a burlap bag maker, it is a computer manufacturer.

Notice how the definition of a car manufacturer is "a business engaged in the manufacture of automobiles." Notice how a computer maker is a company that makes computers.

Because of the complexity and greatness of the universe (far beyond the complexity and greatness of a car or computer), Whatever the Maker of the Universe was, It/He was God, by definition. That's how we know that It/He was God. It's by the definition.

If you suggest that it was NOT God Who made the universe, the definition of whatever made the universe still is God, because it still fits the definition of "God."

If you say that a Klindgab made the universe, then you simply have designed a new word that means "God." If the Klindgab happens to be a corporation of multitudes of entities, then the Klindgab Corporation is God, by definition.

If you want to change the definition of "God," you certainly have that right. But in the same way that you have that right, others have the right to keep the definition. However, even if there is a new word that defines the universe, that new word means what the old word "God" meant when it was common.

You are playing with semantics. You are like the joker in that other thread who thinks that gravity isn't gravity, but rather is density. Gravity is gravity because it defines something that exists. The theory of why gravity exists, or what it is made up of, or the reasons why it works in the universe like it does... this theory does not change the fact that gravity is what it is, by definition.

Go ahead and put together a theory of all kinds of things about God. But "God" fits the Maker of the universe by definition.

It's as simple as that!

''the definition of whatever made the universe still is God'' Not really because I suggested that it could be a few different gods or a few different aliens so no, that does not fit the definition of god, so you lost.
You are using the complexity argument again after I debunked it, why are you doing this?

Again, you forget the simple idea of a corporation manufacturing cars. The corporation is made up of many people doing multitudes of jobs. If they don't work together as one, the pistons will be of different sizes. Not all the doors will fit the car. One window will be made of glass and another of plastic, and they will be of different shades. The car won't work.

Even if there are many entities in God, they all work together as one. And in the case of the complexity and interconnectivity of all the physics and parts of something as great as the universe, they would have to be One. That is what God is.

If your idea was that big bang made the universe, get together with Hawking, and figure out a theory of how there could be multitudes of big bangs, each one very different from every other, and still make a universe that has the same physics throughout.

Actually, this might have been done. But the complexity of such a theory wouldn't really be understandable in any way.

Astargath thinks he is God.

Because the corporation is ''one''? No it's not, it just a lot of people working together on something just like a lot of different gods or aliens could be working together WITHOUT BEING ONE, just a lot of them working together, SO NO YOU ARE WRONG, AGAIN.

You assume that evidence of design is an objective quality obvious to all viewers. In reality, the ability to discern design is largely a function of familiarity and cultural context. ''Not to mention the multitude of phenomena we now know are natural, but which in the past were explained through intelligent design or benevolent creation, such as the Giant's Causeway, the rock upon which the Kyaiktiyo Pagoda has been built, or the numerous legends explaining how various glacial erratics ended up in their current positions.''

To illustrate: when you walk through the woods and see a watch, you recognize it as designed not because of its complexity or by contrasting it with the surrounding nature, but because you have seen other watches and all of those watches have, to your knowledge, been engineered by people. It is also clearly not safe to judge whether or not an object is designed purely by its complexity. A perfectly smooth perfect sphere is an extremely simple shape. However, if you found a perfectly smooth perfectly spherical wooden ball in the woods, you would recognize it as most likely not having arisen naturally, but rather having been carved and sanded into that shape.

Again you are wrong, there is no way of knowing if the other things in nature are also designed. You lost, again.

You are so extremely wrong in this, that you must be joking.

All nature shows us that everything that we think of as "one," is really made up of many parts. One rock is filled with many minerals. One molecule is filled with at least more than one atom. Most people know that one atom is made up of multiple parts of at least 3 kinds.

Yet all of these things work together as one.

If God is made up of many parts, He is still One, especially to have created such a complex universe as ours. We have no other example of this oneness, in nature or in the things that we make. One is always made up of parts that work together as one.

[BADecker]

Something did it. The laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us that whatever the "He" is, it fits the greatness of the definition of God.

Yeah something did it but how do you know it was god?

Thank you for asking this question again. People forget answers, and this prompts me to answer again.

It was God, because it fits our definition of God.

When you look at a car and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a toy manufacturer. It is a car maker.

When you look at a computer and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a burlap bag maker, it is a computer manufacturer.

Notice how the definition of a car manufacturer is "a business engaged in the manufacture of automobiles." Notice how a computer maker is a company that makes computers.

Because of the complexity and greatness of the universe (far beyond the complexity and greatness of a car or computer), Whatever the Maker of the Universe was, It/He was God, by definition. That's how we know that It/He was God. It's by the definition.

If you suggest that it was NOT God Who made the universe, the definition of whatever made the universe still is God, because it still fits the definition of "God."

If you say that a Klindgab made the universe, then you simply have designed a new word that means "God." If the Klindgab happens to be a corporation of multitudes of entities, then the Klindgab Corporation is God, by definition.

If you want to change the definition of "God," you certainly have that right. But in the same way that you have that right, others have the right to keep the definition. However, even if there is a new word that defines the universe, that new word means what the old word "God" meant when it was common.

You are playing with semantics. You are like the joker in that other thread who thinks that gravity isn't gravity, but rather is density. Gravity is gravity because it defines something that exists. The theory of why gravity exists, or what it is made up of, or the reasons why it works in the universe like it does... this theory does not change the fact that gravity is what it is, by definition.

Go ahead and put together a theory of all kinds of things about God. But "God" fits the Maker of the universe by definition.

It's as simple as that!

To illustrate: when you walk through the woods and see a watch, you recognize it as designed not because of its complexity or by contrasting it with the surrounding nature, but because you have seen other watches and all of those watches have, to your knowledge, been engineered by people. It is also clearly not safe to judge whether or not an object is designed purely by its complexity. A perfectly smooth perfect sphere is an extremely simple shape. However, if you found a perfectly smooth perfectly spherical wooden ball in the woods, you would recognize it as most likely not having arisen naturally, but rather having been carved and sanded into that shape.

Again you are wrong, there is no way of knowing if the other things in nature are also designed. You lost, again.

When you examine the watch in the woods, and compare it with a rock, the complexity of both on the micro scale is beyond any simple understanding.

The difference is that the watch has a designer that includes mankind, while the rock doesn't... necessarily.

[Astargath]

Something did it. The laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us that whatever the "He" is, it fits the greatness of the definition of God.

Yeah something did it but how do you know it was god?

Thank you for asking this question again. People forget answers, and this prompts me to answer again.

It was God, because it fits our definition of God.

When you look at a car and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a toy manufacturer. It is a car maker.

When you look at a computer and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a burlap bag maker, it is a computer manufacturer.

Notice how the definition of a car manufacturer is "a business engaged in the manufacture of automobiles." Notice how a computer maker is a company that makes computers.

Because of the complexity and greatness of the universe (far beyond the complexity and greatness of a car or computer), Whatever the Maker of the Universe was, It/He was God, by definition. That's how we know that It/He was God. It's by the definition.

If you suggest that it was NOT God Who made the universe, the definition of whatever made the universe still is God, because it still fits the definition of "God."

If you say that a Klindgab made the universe, then you simply have designed a new word that means "God." If the Klindgab happens to be a corporation of multitudes of entities, then the Klindgab Corporation is God, by definition.

If you want to change the definition of "God," you certainly have that right. But in the same way that you have that right, others have the right to keep the definition. However, even if there is a new word that defines the universe, that new word means what the old word "God" meant when it was common.

You are playing with semantics. You are like the joker in that other thread who thinks that gravity isn't gravity, but rather is density. Gravity is gravity because it defines something that exists. The theory of why gravity exists, or what it is made up of, or the reasons why it works in the universe like it does... this theory does not change the fact that gravity is what it is, by definition.

Go ahead and put together a theory of all kinds of things about God. But "God" fits the Maker of the universe by definition.

It's as simple as that!

To illustrate: when you walk through the woods and see a watch, you recognize it as designed not because of its complexity or by contrasting it with the surrounding nature, but because you have seen other watches and all of those watches have, to your knowledge, been engineered by people. It is also clearly not safe to judge whether or not an object is designed purely by its complexity. A perfectly smooth perfect sphere is an extremely simple shape. However, if you found a perfectly smooth perfectly spherical wooden ball in the woods, you would recognize it as most likely not having arisen naturally, but rather having been carved and sanded into that shape.

Again you are wrong, there is no way of knowing if the other things in nature are also designed. You lost, again.

When you examine the watch in the woods, and compare it with a rock, the complexity of both on the micro scale is beyond any simple understanding.

The difference is that the watch has a designer that includes mankind, while the rock doesn't... necessarily.

However, if you found a perfectly smooth perfectly spherical wooden ball in the woods, you would recognize it as most likely not having arisen naturally, but rather having been carved and sanded into that shape. The perfect spherical wooden ball is designed, however it is not more complex than a rock or a tree, yet we still know it's designed, not because of it's complexity. You are wrong, again.

[BADecker]

Something did it. The laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us that whatever the "He" is, it fits the greatness of the definition of God.

Yeah something did it but how do you know it was god?

Thank you for asking this question again. People forget answers, and this prompts me to answer again.

It was God, because it fits our definition of God.

When you look at a car and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a toy manufacturer. It is a car maker.

When you look at a computer and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a burlap bag maker, it is a computer manufacturer.

Notice how the definition of a car manufacturer is "a business engaged in the manufacture of automobiles." Notice how a computer maker is a company that makes computers.

Because of the complexity and greatness of the universe (far beyond the complexity and greatness of a car or computer), Whatever the Maker of the Universe was, It/He was God, by definition. That's how we know that It/He was God. It's by the definition.

If you suggest that it was NOT God Who made the universe, the definition of whatever made the universe still is God, because it still fits the definition of "God."

If you say that a Klindgab made the universe, then you simply have designed a new word that means "God." If the Klindgab happens to be a corporation of multitudes of entities, then the Klindgab Corporation is God, by definition.

If you want to change the definition of "God," you certainly have that right. But in the same way that you have that right, others have the right to keep the definition. However, even if there is a new word that defines the universe, that new word means what the old word "God" meant when it was common.

You are playing with semantics. You are like the joker in that other thread who thinks that gravity isn't gravity, but rather is density. Gravity is gravity because it defines something that exists. The theory of why gravity exists, or what it is made up of, or the reasons why it works in the universe like it does... this theory does not change the fact that gravity is what it is, by definition.

Go ahead and put together a theory of all kinds of things about God. But "God" fits the Maker of the universe by definition.

It's as simple as that!

To illustrate: when you walk through the woods and see a watch, you recognize it as designed not because of its complexity or by contrasting it with the surrounding nature, but because you have seen other watches and all of those watches have, to your knowledge, been engineered by people. It is also clearly not safe to judge whether or not an object is designed purely by its complexity. A perfectly smooth perfect sphere is an extremely simple shape. However, if you found a perfectly smooth perfectly spherical wooden ball in the woods, you would recognize it as most likely not having arisen naturally, but rather having been carved and sanded into that shape.

Again you are wrong, there is no way of knowing if the other things in nature are also designed. You lost, again.

When you examine the watch in the woods, and compare it with a rock, the complexity of both on the micro scale is beyond any simple understanding.

The difference is that the watch has a designer that includes mankind, while the rock doesn't... necessarily.

However, if you found a perfectly smooth perfectly spherical wooden ball in the woods, you would recognize it as most likely not having arisen naturally, but rather having been carved and sanded into that shape. The perfect spherical wooden ball is designed, however it is not more complex than a rock or a tree, yet we still know it's designed, not because of it's complexity. You are wrong, again.

So, the question has to do with the designer of the internal complexity, right?

The shape of the ball shows that the designer of the ball was probably man.

The question revolves around whether or not the things of nature that appear to not be designed by man were designed or not, right?

This is where cause and effect comes in. After all, it is far more difficult to make a perfectly round ball than it is to simply hew out a chunk of wood. The difficulty of even making the wood is so extreme that mankind cannot do it. This shows that the complexity in nature has been made by something that is far greater at making things than mankind. If this were not enough, you can find all kinds of things in nature that one might think were constructed by mankind.

A simple construction is a balancing rock. It looks like it would have had to have been set in place by mankind. And while we don't have enough of a view into the past to determine 100% that it was not, there are many such rocks, suggesting strongly that mankind did not see them up. But they look like it.

Also, you can find round rocks in nature that look like they have been rounded by a person. It is only by guessing that no person was ever present to round these rocks out that we can determine that people didn't do it.

In other words, we have things built by man. We have things that look like they were built by man, but we aren't sure. And we have some things that were not built by man, but they look like they were.

The difference is that everything was built. Why? Because all things are machines; they have motion; Newton's 3rd Law. Machines have makers.

[Vod]

When you look at a car and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a toy manufacturer. It is a car maker.

When you look at a computer and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a burlap bag maker, it is a computer manufacturer.

Exactly - when you look at a human and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a fairytale god.  It is evolution.

[BADecker]

When you look at a car and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a toy manufacturer. It is a car maker.

When you look at a computer and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a burlap bag maker, it is a computer manufacturer.

Exactly - when you look at a human and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a fairytale god.  It is evolution.

Nobody has any real evidence that evolution exists.

Why not?

Because everything that fits evolution has not been proven.
Also, because everything that fits evolution, fits creation better.
Also, because the kind of mutation that evolution talks about doesn't exist.

Something else other than evolution made human beings.

[Vod]

Nobody has any real evidence that evolution exists.

Except for dogs, horses, etc - animals that man has evolved to suit our needs.

Look at people - black people evolved black skin because they received a lot of sun - not because your god thought they were second class citizens. 

[BADecker]

Nobody has any real evidence that evolution exists.

Except for dogs, horses, etc - animals that man has evolved to suit our needs.

Look at people - black people evolved black skin because they received a lot of sun - not because your god thought they were second class citizens. 

Now you are talking about creation, because:

Nobody has any real evidence that evolution exists.

Why not?

Because everything that fits evolution has not been proven.
Also, because everything that fits evolution, fits creation better.
Also, because the kind of mutation that evolution talks about doesn't exist.

Something else other than evolution made human beings.

[Vod]

Nope, I am talking about evolution.  Proof no sky wizard constantly invents new dogs. 

[BADecker]

Nope, I am talking about evolution.  Proof no sky wizard constantly invents new dogs. 

Nope. You are talking about your evolution religion.   

[Vod]

Nope, I am talking about evolution.  Proof no sky wizard constantly invents new dogs. 

Nope. You are talking about your evolution religion.   

Nope - I am talking about evolution.  The reason you look like your parents. 

[BADecker]

Nope, I am talking about evolution.  Proof no sky wizard constantly invents new dogs. 

Nope. You are talking about your evolution religion.   

Nope - I am talking about evolution.  The reason you look like your parents. 

Well, in case you haven't noticed, you are in the wrong thread.

[Vod]

Nope, I am talking about evolution.  Proof no sky wizard constantly invents new dogs. 

Nope. You are talking about your evolution religion.   

Nope - I am talking about evolution.  The reason you look like your parents. 

Well, in case you haven't noticed, you are in the wrong thread.

I am not.  Evolution scientifically proves your fairy tale is in your head.  :/

[BADecker]

Nope, I am talking about evolution.  Proof no sky wizard constantly invents new dogs. 

Nope. You are talking about your evolution religion.   

Nope - I am talking about evolution.  The reason you look like your parents. 

Well, in case you haven't noticed, you are in the wrong thread.

I am not.  Evolution scientifically proves your fairy tale is in your head.  :/

You're still in the wrong thread.     

[audiman]

dont bother ask , soon you will knew