proof that god exist!!!
bobmarley

Richmond, KY

#21 Apr 4, 2008
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
He posted 3 statements.
His 3rd statement was a "conclusion" based on the first 2.
He failed utterly, to show that statement #1 was, in fact true-- it wasn't.
I demonstrated a possible condition where it was NOT true-- therefore his assumption that it was true for ALL cases was false.
He failed to show that statement #2 was true for all cases. He didn't even show it was true for SOME cases-- he expected everyone to just take it "on faith"-- or at his [untrustworthy] word.
In order for his statement #3 to be true--#1 and #2 HAD to be true for ALL CASES-- which they were not.#3 was dependent on #1 AND #2 being COMPLETELY TRUE.
Therefore his statement #3 was false.
It is basic logic.
what do you want a cookie?
seriously this is the like 5th time youve said that youve proved him wrong.
#1 no you didnt prove anything
#2 you just made up a bunch of none sense that only makes sense to you
#3 your an idiot
The Dude

London, UK

#22 Apr 4, 2008
Then perhaps, bobmarley, you could take us back over the original points again. Or perhaps you'd like to try your own way to try and prove God through 'logic'.

Since: Apr 07

United States

#23 Apr 4, 2008
You are such a silly little guy Ezra . You make me laugh!!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#24 Apr 4, 2008
bobmarley wrote:
<quoted text>
what do you want a cookie?
seriously this is the like 5th time youve said that youve proved him wrong.
#1 no you didnt prove anything
#2 you just made up a bunch of none sense that only makes sense to you
#3 your an idiot
LOL!

Now I KNOW you're an 8 year old child, playing at mom's computer.

Only an 8 year old, or someone with the education of one would consider "your an idiot" to be a reasonable insult.

Dude! It' "YOU'RE" as in "YOU ARE"

LOL!

CLEARLY you are the PARAGON of the modern day educational system.

Or, did you learn your grammar skills in homeschool?

LOL!

“Creation Science!”

Since: Mar 08

Grand Island, NY

#25 Apr 4, 2008
The quote from CS Lewis still has a lot of relevance in this discussion, whether or not he agrees with my point 100%.

If the universe was an accident, and evolution of life is nothing more than a series of favorable accidents, and our thoughts are nothing more than electrical impulses in our brain.

Why are we assuming that we can explain all of the other accidents, when our thoughts themselves are accidents?

To quote Godsmack: "Why do we dream when our thoughts mean nothing?"

The "proof that God exists" exists much more in the philosophical, not really in science. However, if you compare the viewpoints of the believers in God vs the believers in a strictly naturalistic world- you can come up with an answer.

Don't try to prove the God exists by using science. It's not possible. God exists outside of nature, and we are bound by the laws of nature.

Also, God would exist in a way that we don't understand. For a pretty good analogy, check this video out.
The Dude

London, UK

#26 Apr 4, 2008
"Don't try to prove the God exists by using science. It's not possible. God exists outside of nature, and we are bound by the laws of nature"

Glad we finally agree. So in that case, what IS Creation "science", then?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

United States

#27 Apr 4, 2008
bobmarley wrote:
...
#3 your an idiot
That would be "you're" an idiot, Einstein.

“Creation Science!”

Since: Mar 08

Grand Island, NY

#28 Apr 4, 2008
Creation science is the study of the world after the 6 day creation. It's the study of what the specific "kinds" are- which are most likely something very close to the genus "family". It's called bariminology, but apparently that term is dismissed as unscientific as well.

Even if you disagree completely with the scientific validity of creationism, at least we have a bunch of people actually questioning the ToE and BBT.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#29 Apr 4, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
Creation science is the study of the world after the 6 day creation. It's the study of what the specific "kinds" are- which are most likely something very close to the genus "family". It's called bariminology, but apparently that term is dismissed as unscientific as well.
Even if you disagree completely with the scientific validity of creationism, at least we have a bunch of people actually questioning the ToE and BBT.
Define "kind", please.

Be specific.

Your definition should allow ANYONE who understands it to classify ANY NEW animal into the correct "kind".

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#30 Apr 4, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
The quote from CS Lewis still has a lot of relevance in this discussion, whether or not he agrees with my point 100%.
If the universe was an accident, and evolution of life is nothing more than a series of favorable accidents, and our thoughts are nothing more than electrical impulses in our brain.
Why are we assuming that we can explain all of the other accidents, when our thoughts themselves are accidents?
To quote Godsmack: "Why do we dream when our thoughts mean nothing?"
The "proof that God exists" exists much more in the philosophical, not really in science. However, if you compare the viewpoints of the believers in God vs the believers in a strictly naturalistic world- you can come up with an answer.
Don't try to prove the God exists by using science. It's not possible. God exists outside of nature, and we are bound by the laws of nature.
Also, God would exist in a way that we don't understand. For a pretty good analogy, check this video out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =BWyTxCsIXE4XX
If god does exist, I imagine that god would be HUGELY different that what you creationists claim.

For what god would use MAGIC to *poof* things into existence?

A god with little or no imagination, that's who.

God may indeed exist.

But, it's probable that if god does, god is NOTHING like what you imagine.

For your limited little sphere forces god into a tiny little box.

And makes god out to be nothing more than a Stage Magician.

Barely worthy of applause, let alone worship.
The Dude

London, UK

#31 Apr 4, 2008
And what studies have been made that show the world to have been created in 6 days? What is a "kind"?

"at least we have a bunch of people actually questioning the ToE and BBT."

And what evidence against evolution and the Big Bang have they supplied? And more importantly,(something I've tried to get you to get the gist) what evidence FOR Creationism have they come up with? And why is it that Creationism is not taken very seriously by the scientific community if it does indeed (supposedly) have scientific evidence to back it up?

“Creation Science!”

Since: Mar 08

Grand Island, NY

#32 Apr 4, 2008
I just defined the word kind, in the same post that you're criticizing the word "kind".

In taxonomy, "kind" would be the closest to the label "family". You guys really need to read my whole post, not just pick and choose what you want to attack.

God may not be what we creationists believe, but He may also be exactly what we believe. You can't prove it either way.

Evidence for creation (and anti-naturalism): The limits of where current organisms originate- and where these origins are limited to.(bariminology)

Astronomical observations that explain that stars cannot form naturally. Matter vs antimatter ratio, and why the BBT can't explain it.

Creationists don't ignore any scientific discoveries, we just interpret the same evidence differently than evolutionists.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#33 Apr 4, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
I just defined the word kind, in the same post that you're criticizing the word "kind".
You did? Did you provide an EXACT and DETAILED definiton?

Or did you ride on the COATTAILS of EVOLUTION and use the term "family"?

Hmmm.
CreationScience wrote:
In taxonomy, "kind" would be the closest to the label "family".
YOU DID! YOU DID!

YOU USED EVOLUTIONARY TERM TO DEFINE YOUR "KIND"!!!

LOL!

Now. Actually DEFINE the term in such a way that ANYONE can easily define a NEW ANIMAL into which "kind" it belongs.

If you can.
bobmarley

Richmond, KY

#34 Apr 4, 2008
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You did? Did you provide an EXACT and DETAILED definiton?
Or did you ride on the COATTAILS of EVOLUTION and use the term "family"?
Hmmm.
<quoted text>
YOU DID! YOU DID!
YOU USED EVOLUTIONARY TERM TO DEFINE YOUR "KIND"!!!
LOL!
Now. Actually DEFINE the term in such a way that ANYONE can easily define a NEW ANIMAL into which "kind" it belongs.
If you can.
this dude spends 24/7 on this website.
damn wtf loser

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#35 Apr 4, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
Creationists don't ignore any scientific discoveries, we just interpret the same evidence differently than
evolutionists.
Okay.

What KIND do the following fossils belong to:

Archaeopteryx lithographica
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/a...

Or this:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/...

But, especially this:
Tiktaalik
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/science/05c...

Using your definition of Kind, what Kind are these animals?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#36 Apr 4, 2008
bobmarley wrote:
<quoted text>
this dude spends 24/7 on this website.
damn wtf loser
I had a rare week between projects.

What's YOUR excuse?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

United States

#37 Apr 5, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
In taxonomy, "kind" would be the closest to the label "family".
So, according to your fairy tale, every "family" group was made AT THE SAME TIME, yet magically, none of the elephants manage to have their fossils mixed in with dinosaurs, etc.

"Oh, that's because the magic water, magically sorted the magic bones before some of them were magically fossilized and others were magically not fossilized."

Uh huh.

Seriously, you guys desperately need to grow up, you are lowering the planet's average IQ

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#38 Apr 5, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
The quote from CS Lewis still has a lot of relevance in this discussion, whether or not he agrees with my point 100%.
If the universe was an accident, and evolution of life is nothing more than a series of favorable accidents, and our thoughts are nothing more than electrical impulses in our brain.
Why are we assuming that we can explain all of the other accidents, when our thoughts themselves are accidents?
To quote Godsmack: "Why do we dream when our thoughts mean nothing?"
The "proof that God exists" exists much more in the philosophical, not really in science. However, if you compare the viewpoints of the believers in God vs the believers in a strictly naturalistic world- you can come up with an answer.
Don't try to prove the God exists by using science. It's not possible. God exists outside of nature, and we are bound by the laws of nature.
Also, God would exist in a way that we don't understand. For a pretty good analogy, check this video out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =BWyTxCsIXE4XX
Religions (and their deities) evolve like any other dynamic system. The longevity of your God is largely due to his description as being beyond Science, beyond Nature, beyond understanding and, consequently, beyond objective examination.

From your description, I gather that YOUR God (they all differ slightly) is a philosophical construct existing to make you feel that you are special.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#39 Apr 5, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
I just defined the word kind, in the same post that you're criticizing the word "kind".
In taxonomy, "kind" would be the closest to the label "family". You guys really need to read my whole post, not just pick and choose what you want to attack.
I presume your definition of "kind" does not extend to Family Hominidae as it has seven extant species and I KNOW you won't find that acceptable.

Since: Apr 07

United States

#40 Apr 5, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
I just defined the word kind, in the same post that you're criticizing the word "kind".
In taxonomy, "kind" would be the closest to the label "family". You guys really need to read my whole post, not just pick and choose what you want to attack.
God may not be what we creationists believe, but He may also be exactly what we believe. You can't prove it either way.
Evidence for creation (and anti-naturalism): The limits of where current organisms originate- and where these origins are limited to.(bariminology)
Astronomical observations that explain that stars cannot form naturally. Matter vs antimatter ratio, and why the BBT can't explain it.
Creationists don't ignore any scientific discoveries, we just interpret the same evidence differently than evolutionists.
They call the science you're involved in pseudo-science or hocus pocus . It primarily deals with ghosts, fantasies and conjecture . The catholic and evangelical churches practice it .

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 min marksman11 164,292
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min replaytime 81,850
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 43 min Eagle 12 - 33,078
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr Dogen 2,194
Did humans come from Sturgeons? Oct 16 Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee Oct 16 Science 1
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web