Prove there's a god.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#569664 Dec 5, 2012
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they do. You just don't see it. That's their big secret. They work undercover, in the dark.
Has a spider ever chewed on your house? Has a spider ever laid eggs in your garbage?
Spiders eat the things that can harm you. Spiders are your friends. Treat them as such.
Usually I do.

However, we got some meanies here. Some of the spiders found here are 10-15 times more deadly than a rattlesnake.

I'd rather not risk it with them.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#569665 Dec 5, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Are you saying that RR likey the weener?
Well - he says he’s admired a male body and another's penis – you decide
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#569666 Dec 5, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
I presume by "three types of feeding relationship" you mean the trophic levels: producers, herbivores and predators.
And yes, organisms compete at all trophic levels. Producers compete for sunlight. Arboreal herbivores and herbivores with long necks out compete the grazers for leaves and fruit. And faster predators or social hunters often outcompete other predators.
[Where are the scavengers and saprophytes? An alternate classification lumps the herbivores, carnivores and scavengers together as consumers, and calls the saprophytes and related organisms decomposers, yielding these three: producers, consumers and decomposers]
Even so, competition does not justify "evolution".

That which has no need to compete is necessarily fitter than what needs to compete; therefore evolution would eliminate the need to compete.

While survival by natural selection is the same as "survival by accident", it is not the fitness of any organism that determines its development and ability to survive... neither does the ability to survive contribute to the "fitness" of any organism.

If you begin with an accident, you must conclude with an accident.

Just Results

“Jesus is Love”

Since: Jul 12

Hutchinson, MN

#569667 Dec 5, 2012
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe youre correct,for example
theres a 25000 year old human setlement near Prague,
also
Damascus is the oldest continuously-inhabited city.
But archeologists have found evidence of aboriginal settlements dating back 40,000+ years.
Mojave Desert has a Calico Ghost Town (old mining town also developed by Walter Knott into a tourist attraction) which was the site of a California Indian tribe settlement 38,000 years ago.
Making up stuff again to make your lies seem real. There is no way you can prove those dates are real but try anyway...... I need a good laugh.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#569668 Dec 5, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. It's the ability to produce more viable offspring.
<quoted text>
Do you know the difference between a gene and an organism?
<quoted text>
Needs are not weaknesses when the needs can be met. You need oxygen, which is not a weakness if you can stay out of old refrigerators and lake bottoms.
Are you serious?

It is possible for all the offspring that are produced to die before, during and even after conception; therefore the capacity to produce, guarantees nothing.

FACT: That which is indestructible is independent of reproduction as a means to sustain its existence, and is hence superior in its capacity to endure, than that which is destructible and needs to reproduce.

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#569669 Dec 5, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Usually I do.
However, we got some meanies here. Some of the spiders found here are 10-15 times more deadly than a rattlesnake.
I'd rather not risk it with them.
Compromise. Obviously you are deadlier than them unless I'm typing to a spider right now.

It's not a competition. It takes patience.

Venomous creatures only bite when they are hunting or hunted. They can't eat you so the only reason they would bite you is if they feel threatened. Don't threaten them and you can hold them.

Just Results

“Jesus is Love”

Since: Jul 12

Hutchinson, MN

#569670 Dec 5, 2012
Crickback wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove there ISN'T one apocalypse666
Christians have NO burden to prove there is a God, but atheists have the life long burden to prove there isn't one. And since the evidence is overwhelming that God does exist, they are frantic losers.

Atheism is a religion for the willfully lost and confused.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#569671 Dec 5, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Your understanding of this material is badly deformed, no doubt by your faith science teachers. Predators exist because they can, and they are not in conflict with evolution. The only thing in conflict with evolution is your church.
<quoted text>
Sorry. Having millions of questions is fine. But you lack the basic education in the field for a reason: you don't care about any of the answers to your questions. They all are declarative statements of your faith disguised as inquiry.
There is no need to understand the material world to see that the implications of the terms you use make your conflicting.

Natural selection is creating entities with needs, and need is a weakness; therefore there is no such thing as natural selection as it relates to the selection of the fittest of the fittest.

Organisms that graze are better survivors than organisms that prey; because vegetation is more abundant that the organisms that graze. Therefore we should see only organism that graze... or organisms that depend only on intake of elements from the air for that matter (like some bacteria do).

Having a million questions is fine, I know; but your inability to answer then even though you act as if you know two shits about what you are saying, is not fine by me.

So what if my inquiry is faith based; arent yours? Do you ever test a theory or hypothesis before you BELIEVE it might be valid?

There are no posters in nature sayin "here is evolution at work..."; so aren't you essentially a BELIEVER in ToE?

Regardless of what you base your belief on (evidence, facts, etc), YOU ARE STILL A MAN OF FAITH.

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#569672 Dec 5, 2012
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians have NO burden to prove there is a God
Because they can't.

But, but, but.........but we know there is one. The Bible says there is. So there.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#569673 Dec 5, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it is a product of the vetting aspect of the scientific method in the broader sense, which goes beyond observing, hypothesizing, experimenting, collecting data, and induction (generalization).
It's not science just because it's published. It's only accepted into the scientific community after it has been subjected to the larger scientific method: peer review and the test of time.
If the results are reproducible, if they are never contradicted by other findings, if they lead to confirmed predictions, or if they suggests additional avenues of inquiry that are also fruitful, then consensus will be achieved and the information called scientific knowledge.
Oh please!

Scientific consensus is nothing more than a group of people gathering together and saying "All in favour of this/that say ai!"

Those who are not in favour will just have to relocate their equipment to a dark, damp cave and conduct their studies there like... a combination of Frankenstein and batman.

You keep taking about evidence and reproducible results. But I know that you don't have to understand something to control it; so just because you are able to demonstrate this/that doesn't mean you actually know shit about it.

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#569674 Dec 5, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you serious?
It is possible for all the offspring that are produced to die before, during and even after conception; therefore the capacity to produce, guarantees nothing.
FACT: That which is indestructible is independent of reproduction as a means to sustain its existence, and is hence superior in its capacity to endure, than that which is destructible and needs to reproduce.
So you're going with the old refrigerator?

Some of my favorite children books:

1. Strangers Have the Best Candy.

2. The Magical World Inside the Abandoned Refrigerator.

3. Curious George and the High Voltage Line.

Oh, and by the way. Homosexuals can reproduce. We just don't tell you. Shhhhhhhhhh
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#569675 Dec 5, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument also applies to elves, pixies, sprites, brownies, fairies, nymphs, satyrs, fawns, changelings, ghosts, goblins, spirits, ghouls, giants, poltergeists, doppelgangers, poltergeists, demons, devils, angels, djinns, succubi, incubi, zombies, mummies, werewolves, banshees, gnomes, trolls, imps, gargoyles, dragons, mermaids, unicorns, sea serpents, furies, harpies, minotaurs, medusae, gremlins, warlocks, and sirens.
They are also in your "Zone of the Existent."
<quoted text>
Nice thinking yourself there, Aristotle.
So whats your problem?

Do you have a problem suggesting that half men/half monkeys once exist? No, so I cant see why you have problems believing in sphinxes and centaurs and mermaids...
Rich

Sebastian, FL

#569676 Dec 5, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
I had no idea
my bumpers will be so adorned
as soon as I can find the fish
can they be chrome or do they need be silver?
Considering your obvious anger towards religion its no real surprise that you're so desirous of acting out. Knock yourself out,if it makes you feel better to tweak those you feel wronged by. It says as much about you as it does about them.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#569678 Dec 5, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes it does it on its own.
<quoted text>
Nobody cares what the scary chicken on a stick taught you about right and wrong. Humanists justify our lives and our habits by other standards: reason and the Golden Rule.
<quoted text>
Then you're doing it wrong.
Humanists are full of shit; and the golden rule doesnt prevent someone from poking your eyes out with it.

Humanist are essentially hypocritical. In order to accept the total man, you must embrace his negative as well as his positive; and we certainly cannot embrace the negatives of men like Adolph Hitler.

It is you who are doing sex wrong; homosexuality prevents the spreading of genes so it destroys the human species. Thats about as wrong as it gets: THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

If you are so interested in population control; get together with all your friends and play your part by killing yourselves.

Since life arose from "nothing" and will return to "nothing" (according to your ToE), your existence is fundamentally meaningless anyway.

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#569679 Dec 5, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
So whats your problem?
Do you have a problem suggesting that half men/half monkeys once exist?
I do. Why would you think that?

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#569680 Dec 5, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
You denial of the time for creation is based on a misunderstanding:
I take it that you did not hear me explain that the "day" suggested in the Bible is more suggestive of a thousand year period; and that a thousand represents the concept of infinity in the Hebrew tradition... therefore the process of creation is suggested to be an continuous, perpetual process.
You stuff is hardly less mythological that the sphinx and the centaurs. I mean, If you can be out searching for half man/half monkeys and half fish/half tetrapod: YOU SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM LOOKING FOR A HALF MAN HALF HORSE.
your failure to appreciate the creation of Eve from Adam represents your failure to think critically:
When the bible says that Eve was made from Adam's "rib"; it was essentially making a reference to the X and Y chromosomes in the gametes.
The rib is located at the "side", hence the making of woman from what is "at man's side" represents the taking of the X chromosome from "beside" the Y chromosome to make a woman with chromosomes "XX".
Your elitist attitude amounts to nothing but arrogance. You have the pomp of a pope who thinks the principles of his faith are so solid that they are unquestionable.
That's real good, now explain how that is possible when the English language hadn't even been developed yet when that was written.

Gotta hand it to you though if you bent over a little bit more you would be a pretzel.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#569681 Dec 5, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm an evo. The main role of sex in my life is to get my freak on and to see the face of god (BTW, he looks a lot like Willie Nelson).
<quoted text>
Really? You seem to see people as reproduction units.
<quoted text>
Most gay people I know are parents. Most have propagated their genes.
I dont see people as reproduction units; I somply identify a specific function of reproduction.

Get your "freak on"? It is YOU that see people as sex objects... you vile creature.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GAY PARENT! You are living in an illusion. Thats as absurd as the theory of evolution itself.

There is a difference between say "GAY PARENT" and saying "BECOMING GAY AFTER HAVING A CHILD".
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#569682 Dec 5, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Your church preaches apocalypse. It also teaches that scientists, including climatologists, aren't to be trusted or believed.
“We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand”- James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan
Eradication of your church isn't necessary. We only need to neutralize it.
Everything has its "maladjusted" elements; Christianity, science, chef school...
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#569683 Dec 5, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Just because you can type doesn't make you have a lick of sense either.
I could say the same about you.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#569684 Dec 5, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have investigated god
there is no evidence
your god is a projection of your psyche
In your case, a drug addicted delusion
You have not investigated anything

You cant investigate without evidence (or what is suggested as evidence).

God projects Himself through my psyche ALSO, but He transcends it.

You seem to know a lot about drug addicted illusion. You seem to have personal experiences with drug addiction; tell us about 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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 3 min Sky Writer 31 183,628
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min truth 667,933
London TV viewers fixed on trump Inaugural process 7 min Mr About Town 1
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 11 min Chess Jurist 92,709
Everyone is a fool 58 min Truthiness 4
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr crucifiedguy 286,073
Poll Why does bill clinton hold his mouth wide open? (Feb '08) 2 hr Mszymanski 16
More from around the web