Prove there's a god.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621123 May 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the crocoduck would falsify most of the theory of evolution, not support it.
Lol. That was funny.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621124 May 3, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you Aura, for making my point...EVERYTHING is not a transitional fossil.
Yes, everything is. The problem is you are conceptualizing evolution as having a "goal" or a specific form it is striving towards. That's not how it works. Every species becomes the transitional form of some future species. We are the transitional form of future hominids.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#621125 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>How so? You think that you were telling me anything new by claiming that human beings have biases? So what? That's what the scientific method is for - to remove bias and human error.
This is what is happening:
you - Scientists are ebilll! They stealz our tax dollars to research the debils evolution! They all work together to lie to us! Jeebus!
me - proof?
you - you're so blind to jeebus!
(to remove bias and ''human'' error?) Wow, so you really think ''science'' can have no human error?

rotflmao....

No dimwit. Telling you that scientist of evolution have a bias against creationist..

Tell us, what would happen to all the jobs of the scientist who are studying evolution and transitional fossils, fish to bird, ape to man, etc etc,,, IF they were to admitt God created this world???

Oh, and here is you a fast way to make $10,000... since you think ''science'' can remove human error...lolol

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/27/cr...

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621126 May 3, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
(to remove bias and ''human'' error?) Wow, so you really think ''science'' can have no human error?
rotflmao....
No dimwit. Telling you that scientist of evolution have a bias against creationist..
Tell us, what would happen to all the jobs of the scientist who are studying evolution and transitional fossils, fish to bird, ape to man, etc etc,,, IF they were to admitt God created this world???
Oh, and here is you a fast way to make $10,000... since you think ''science'' can remove human error...lolol
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/27/cr...
I didn't say it removes it completely, I said that is it's purpose, and it does a very good job of keeping people honest.

Why would they admit god created the world? There is no evidence for it. And again, why do you set up religion so as to be diametrically opposed to science? If we accept a creator, does that mean we have to stop searching for knowledge? That shows how you think. God is a free pass for you to turn off your brain.

Did you really link to glenn beck's site? After a cursory examination of the "challenge," it appears this guy wants someone to prove creation didn't happen. As we all (should) know, it is impossible to prove a negative. Stop being stupid. You fell for a publicity stunt.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#621127 May 3, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
(to remove bias and ''human'' error?) Wow, so you really think ''science'' can have no human error?
rotflmao....
No dimwit. Telling you that scientist of evolution have a bias against creationist..
Tell us, what would happen to all the jobs of the scientist who are studying evolution and transitional fossils, fish to bird, ape to man, etc etc,,, IF they were to admitt God created this world???
Oh, and here is you a fast way to make $10,000... since you think ''science'' can remove human error...lolol
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/27/cr...
The scientific method does remove bias, the Catholic church developed it just for that reason. Many times the Genesis fable has been demonstrated incorrect, but your creationist dishonestly discounts it.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#621128 May 3, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>In the case of atheists, they do not care about facts or reason. They are here to put on the illusion that they have won something. When you create a circle for them, they do not know what to do.
They actually create the circle themselves because they don't know how to admit an obvious truth that is distasteful to them. But yea, I hear ya.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#621129 May 3, 2013
who="Cathcher1"]Hey, when you play ball(s), you can have fun with no risk.

When we play ball, we are at serious risk of terrible pain.

With proper design, you would still have something to play with, and we would be far safer.
Well, you know, problem with that is that everyone has a different opinion of "proper" or perfect design. How would you ever get your balls played with then?:)

And more importantly, why would you assume that God would make something "perfect" anyway? Maybe this is just the way it is meant to be, for whatever reason it is meant to be?

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#621130 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, everything is. The problem is you are conceptualizing evolution as having a "goal" or a specific form it is striving towards. That's not how it works. Every species becomes the transitional form of some future species. We are the transitional form of future hominids.
And how, pray tell, did you arrive at this conclusion about me? I assure you, I am not "conceptualizing evolution as having a "goal" or a specific form it is striving towards." That's an absurd assumption on your part. <shakes head> Sorry Timn, you definitely have that wrong.
youtube

AOL

#621131 May 3, 2013
.

100% PROOF Pope Francis is ANTICHRIST_______




.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#621132 May 3, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
Circumcision
I guess I agree that babies should be left alone regarding that. But me personally; I'm glad I got it cut off. It's too weird to have that, IMO. Still I guess it would be better to wait and let the man as an adult make that decision for himself.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#621133 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
Tired of this. Thanks for the conversation, but we've been going in circles for a while now. My only point is that if you require a mechanism for consciousness from non-consciousness before we can infer meaning from the apparent brain/thought connection, you might as well demand a similar mechanism for everything else for which we have no explanation, therefore ruling out any current observations. That, to me, makes no sense. It's technically true, but I think it's prudent to go with what we have rather than what we might have someday.
Yea me too. We've only been going in circles because you refuse to admit that science cannot make a statement such that consciousness is more likely a molecular phenomenon than a quantum one. It's a fact yet you insist it isn't. And if you say you do not insist on that, then there is no argument at all here. Like you're just playing word games.

You keep saying it is "prudent to go with what we have" yet we have nothing on a mechanism for consciousness. All we have is association of molecules. So hopefully this merry go round is over, you can think what you want. You're not the only one that doesn't understand the point I am making, even though it is pretty simple to understand.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621134 May 3, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
And how, pray tell, did you arrive at this conclusion about me? I assure you, I am not "conceptualizing evolution as having a "goal" or a specific form it is striving towards." That's an absurd assumption on your part. <shakes head> Sorry Timn, you definitely have that wrong.
Sorry, then, but that's what it sounded like. It seems to me that you have trouble accepting that everything is a transitional fossil because you want to be able to point to one specific species as being "in between" ape and man (as if man is the 'endpoint'), when that's not how it works. Everything is constantly transitioning to something else. Sorry that I got the wrong impression.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621135 May 3, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you know, problem with that is that everyone has a different opinion of "proper" or perfect design. How would you ever get your balls played with then?:)
And more importantly, why would you assume that God would make something "perfect" anyway? Maybe this is just the way it is meant to be, for whatever reason it is meant to be?
I don't know, maybe a retractable titanium shell around our special parts? That would do just fine. Having the most sensitive part of our body jutting out from the front doesn't make much sense.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621136 May 3, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>Yea me too. We've only been going in circles because you refuse to admit that science cannot make a statement such that consciousness is more likely a molecular phenomenon than a quantum one. It's a fact yet you insist it isn't. And if you say you do not insist on that, then there is no argument at all here. Like you're just playing word games.
You keep saying it is "prudent to go with what we have" yet we have nothing on a mechanism for consciousness. All we have is association of molecules. So hopefully this merry go round is over, you can think what you want. You're not the only one that doesn't understand the point I am making, even though it is pretty simple to understand.
I understand the point you are trying to make, and I do not agree with it. I have tried to explain my position with the gravity analogy I kept referring to, which prompted you to say "well, we really can't say mass has anything to do with gravity since we don't know it's mechanism."

That's lunacy. Gravity exists where there is mass. Thought exists where there is brain. It might be wrong to assume they have anything to do with each other, but it certainly seems they are related. That is "what we have."

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#621137 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
The hardware pretty clearly is not turned off while we sleep. The brain is very active at all stages of sleep. And yes, there kind of is a "half ass mode" that occurs during sleep. The brain functions on different wavelengths.
So be it. Why then do we experience a mode where there is no memory? Something must be "shut off". Obviously the sleep state is different from the wake state. Still, my explanation for why we 'have no memory of sleep but retain the sense of being in the present' is very plausible. And still neither of us can say our belief is more plausible than the other.
I think dreaming supports my position anyway - that the brain can create experience out of whole cloth with no corresponding "reality" to draw from seems a pretty clear indicator that the brain is responsible for thought.
Again, you can *believe* what you want but don't say that science can ever make a statement that your belief is more likely than consciousness from a quantum source.

This provides no evidence that the brain is or isn't a hardware device that is a "medium" for consciousness.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621138 May 3, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>Yea me too. We've only been going in circles because you refuse to admit that science cannot make a statement such that consciousness is more likely a molecular phenomenon than a quantum one. It's a fact yet you insist it isn't. And if you say you do not insist on that, then there is no argument at all here. Like you're just playing word games.
You keep saying it is "prudent to go with what we have" yet we have nothing on a mechanism for consciousness. All we have is association of molecules. So hopefully this merry go round is over, you can think what you want. You're not the only one that doesn't understand the point I am making, even though it is pretty simple to understand.
Ahaha. I'm really starting to think you're right that someone follows you around giving you bad judgeits. I've never seen someone get so many negatives so fast. I mean, I don't agree with you, but there are certainly more offensive posters than you.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#621139 May 3, 2013
Looks like someone at topix arranged for me to get instant negative judicons. No one could have done it that fast. What a bunch of immature BS. Whatever. Like it matters anyway.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#621140 May 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
What "kind" are trilobites?
Trilobites are some of the earliest "kinds" of sea crustaceans and other hard-shelled water creatures.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#621141 May 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the crocoduck would falsify most of the theory of evolution, not support it.
Crocoduck?! Hell naw, hahaha!!!!

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621143 May 3, 2013
Pokay wrote:
Looks like someone at topix arranged for me to get instant negative judicons. No one could have done it that fast. What a bunch of immature BS. Whatever. Like it matters anyway.
Woah there. Reign it in there cowboy.

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
The Future of Politics in America 3 min It aint necessari... 199
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 39 min Al Capone 3,385
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 59 min MUQ2 88,046
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr MUQ2 284,528
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr X Pendable 184,716
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr truth 665,278
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr MUQ2 45,817
Secular Humanism VS Christianity 1 hr Bongo 99
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 3 hr nanoanomaly 525
More from around the web