Prove there's a god.

Posted in the Top Stories Forum

Comments (Page 29,486)

Showing posts 589,701 - 589,720 of719,622
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621084
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
in the. mind maybe,
or have you seen any humans being iput into cages by apes?
LOL
They can those tuff greens though.
Seriously asides from planet of the apes, it isn't in most apes to infringe on other species , except chimps that hunt.
Chimps the most like us (funny that). They may learn how to build cages watching us though :)

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621085
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So true.
Then there's me, I misread Colorado as Canada, how is that for a "duh" moment?:P
You could always bleach your hair? j/k :)

“Headless Body in Topless Bar”

Since: Sep 07

Hygiene, Colorado

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621086
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jorge W Arbusto wrote:
Topix does a huge service. It provides a home for the crazy Christian to keep them off the streets. The Topix Christian Insane Asylum is open for business.
See?
YTube wrote:
.
p r o o f_____1.5 BIL MUSLIMS SHORTLY TO DIE
http://youtu.be/n7ok0g8iwJI
.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621087
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
in the. mind maybe,
or have you seen any humans being iput into cages by apes?
LOL
A human against most animals would lose BIG time were it not for our man made weapons, restraints, etc.

In the meantime, wild animals need no artificial weapons or tools of any kind to kill a human being.

Not sure since we humans do need accoutrement that we are "superior".

I'm thinking not so much.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621088
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
The bias of evolutionary leaders
It is a fallacy to believe that facts speak for themselves—they are always interpreted according to a framework. The framework behind the evolutionists’ interpretation is naturalism—it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past.
Evolution is a deduction from this assumption, and it is essentially the idea that things made themselves. It includes these unproven ideas: nothing gave rise to something at an alleged ‘big bang,’ non-living matter gave rise to life, single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, man’s yearnings gave rise to religions, etc.
Professor D.M.S. Watson, one of the leading biologists and science writers of his day, demonstrated the atheistic bias behind much evolutionary thinking when he wrote:
Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because it's the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.1
So it’s not a question of biased religious creationists versus objective scientific evolutionists; rather, it is the biases of the Christian religion versus the biases of the religion of secular humanism resulting in different interpretations of the same scientific data. As the anti-creationist science writer Boyce Rensberger admits:
At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.2
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist — see documentation), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in promoting evolutionary biology. He recently wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation regardless of whether or not the facts support it:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.3
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapte...
All humans have biases. You are not saying, or rather quoting, anything new here. You previously asserted that there exists some massive conspiracy to defraud the public. You have not proven, let alone suggested, any such thing.

“Headless Body in Topless Bar”

Since: Sep 07

Hygiene, Colorado

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621089
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
in the. mind maybe,
or have you seen any humans being iput into cages by apes?
LOL
Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Get your filthy paws off me, you damn, dirty ape!

That's also what every women should say to your average, insane Topix Christian.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621090
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>

karl, you've been made worthy through the blood of Jesus!
well thanks

wish I could say something nice about you in return.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621091
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
I mean transitional fossils that prove that one animal changed into another. We wont find any but evolutionists are convinced that we don't need to find any in order to prove evolution as a fact without doubt. Now every species that we see that has evolved has not made a transition from another kind of animal but has evolved after its own kind with no new information added because whatever info that was unlocked was already there. Scientists have never found anything in the fossil record that suggests that "a dog came from a cat", "an elephant came from a mouse", or that "a turtle came from a fish", so to speak. What we observe is that every animal evolved after its own kind and not from (what scientists try to suggest as a fact) one common ancestor. We observe that each "new" animal introduced is the same exact "kind" of animal as before with no new information added but unlocked as a means of adaptation to the changing environment. This suggests that scripture holds an accurate account of the animals reproducing after their OWN KIND. Evolution seems to be missing this observable fact or just ignoring it.
Try paragraphs please.

You are really off base here. I think that you conceptualize evolution as one species giving birth out of whole cloth to an entirely new species - a cat birthing a dog, a mouse birthing an elephant, etc. That's not how it works. Slow, incremental changes add up over time. Simple as that.

And the evidence for common descent is overwhelming. Why else would we share much of our DNA with bananas?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621092
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya know, that's the same for when people want evidence of God. We want something in stone. Anyway, U mentioned that the ape's brain size increased with each transition but if that is so then why did man's brain size decrease from its last so-called transition? Why?!
You mean neanderthals? We did not descend directly from them. They were a part of the genus homo, but not our direct ancestor. We did interbreed, though.

And even if they were our direct ancestor, I don't see your point. So what if thr brain size decreased? You can't conceptualize evolution as striving "toward" anything other than survival. Humans were not it's "goal."

You have plenty of transitional fossils that would be clear evidence to any impartial observer. That's why you don't find many atheist evolution deniers, because we don't believe our salvation depends on denying it.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621093
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Greens - tuf wrote:
<quoted text>
And the strength, where did the strength go?.
We would be no chance against a big ape in a arm wrestle.
If we are a better newer product then where is the strength ??
Lol
Sigh.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621094
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OCB wrote:
<quoted text>A human against most animals would lose BIG time were it not for our man made weapons, restraints, etc.
In the meantime, wild animals need no artificial weapons or tools of any kind to kill a human being.
Not sure since we humans do need accoutrement that we are "superior".
I'm thinking not so much.
The evolutionary trade-off teeth and jaws for brains , claws for highly articulated thumbs. Worked really well for the master of apex predators.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

The other animals aren't in the ballpark, much less the same league.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621095
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jorge W Arbusto wrote:
<quoted text>That's not what he wrote. Your dishonesty is palpable.
Formulated by whom to be 6200 years old?
Are you cognizant that dogs were domesticated over 33,000 years ago? Are you postulating that we could have reached our current population in 6200 years from a pair of naked teenagers (good thing Adam didn't find the sheep sexy), especially in light of a maniacal, genocidal, world-wide flood where babies and fetuses were drowned in some failed attempt to fix an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent's mistake.
Your god is nothing more than a lousy, torturing middle manager. Welcome to YahwehMart.
Seriously. We start with 2 people 6k years ago, god calls for a mulligan and gets a do over halfway through, and then poof, 7 billion people.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621096
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>perhaps you can answer an age old riddle:

how is it that humanist/socialist/atheists consistantly make such vicious judgements such as "you are unworthy", but claim in the same breath that Christians are the one's saying such things???

karl, you've been made worthy through the blood of Jesus!
I've never seen or heard of any atheist claiming anybody was unworthy, whatever that means.

Maybe unworthy of scientific respect.

That would be true of many.

Got any examples, or did you just make that up.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621097
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Many things I could expound on. The ever increasing brain size found in our recent ancestors. Feet that go from being well adapted to climbing to being well adapted to walking upright. Go look at an artist's rendering of homo habilis, then homo ergaster, then homo eructus, then read up on them. Wiki can teach you a lot more than me. There is a clear progression from "ape like" to "human like." Even eructus, which is clearly on the "human like" side of the scale, displays a wide pelvis that is not quite suited to bipedalism.
I think the issue is that when people say "transitional fossil," they want some set in stone, clear 50/50 mix of two different species. That's not how it works. Small changes happen over time - it's not like one day a monkey woke up with a big brain, then the next day it woke up as a modern human.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Many things I could expound on. The ever increasing brain size found in our recent ancestors. Feet that go from being well adapted to climbing to being well adapted to walking upright. Go look at an artist's rendering of homo habilis, then homo ergaster, then homo eructus, then read up on them. Wiki can teach you a lot more than me. There is a clear progression from "ape like" to "human like." Even eructus, which is clearly on the "human like" side of the scale, displays a wide pelvis that is not quite suited to bipedalism.
I think the issue is that when people say "transitional fossil," they want some set in stone, clear 50/50 mix of two different species. That's not how it works. Small changes happen over time - it's not like one day a monkey woke up with a big brain, then the next day it woke up as a modern human.
Oh, I'll agree, your "average creationist" as you put it...yeah...they're looking for Pegasus...definitely. But here's why. If the theory were true...even on a scale of small changes over time, there would have to be fossils that depict that middle ground...you know...that area where the full evolvement hadn't yet occurred. I have no problem with small changes over time...as I believe they do indeed occur. But the idea that man evolved from an ape...no...I disagree. Well known scientists and medical authorities have studied and documented that the first Neaderthal skulls shows signs of severe rickets...a deficiency disease characterized by defective bone growth, so to assume these fossils are transitional forms because the size, formation, etc... is uncommon, s really stretching. The distinctive difference may be a malformation and not a specific species or change at all...its more probable that it was a deformed skull. I mean if there were multitudes of them and they could be found all over the world, it'd be much easier to swallow, but that simply isn't the case. Look at Java Man...Dubois finds a few skulls which may or may not be apes, gibbons, whatever...then finds a human femur some 50 ft or so nearby and assumes the bones all belong together, then decides its a missing link, and names it Java Man. Dubois later recants his own find, but without it, science has a huge missing link...so the scientific world refuses to believe what the very man who discovered the ape told us. It is not the link. It was most likely a gibbon. Bottom line is...what science calls transitional fossils is mere guess work. I would imagine if a whole species had evolved it would be a little easier to find more than a few isolated fossils.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621098
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never seen or heard of any atheist claiming anybody was unworthy, whatever that means.
Maybe unworthy of scientific respect.
That would be true of many.
Got any examples, or did you just make that up.
Are you scraping the bottom of the barrel for a sane reason?

And....do you expect a reasonable answer?

Just messing with ya, Hello Arrow..:)

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621099
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jorge W Arbusto wrote:
<quoted text>That is so unintentionally funny. "Scientific hoo hah!" Huzzah! You cling to a dusty tome written by people with less knowledge than even the least educated today and you call it scientific hoo hah. Of course you get turned upside down. You're already off balance.
Several posters have pointed to transitions. I would wager that you were all three monkey in the see no evil statue at once.
Actually, Jorge, I WAS being intentionally silly...as I do like to keep the debates and conversation somewhat light. I'm not really into the whole...creationist hates atheist club that goes on in this forum. Personally, I have a world of respect for science, scientist, and many of the atheist posters on this site. Just because I don't necessarily agree doesn't, however, make me average and certainly doesn't warrant being called a monkey. I do find it interesting that you see those who wrote ancient writings to lack knowledge though. I will guarantee their knowledge of what was occurring thousands of years ago is far better than yours...I mean since they were alive and you weren't and all. But it's all good. If it helps you sleep at night to call those ancient men who built pyramids with their bare hands,, dimwits, well by all means...have at it.:). I think they were pretty darn intelligent myself.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621100
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jorge W Arbusto wrote:
Topix does a huge service. It provides a home for the crazy Christian to keep them off the streets. The Topix Christian Insane Asylum is open for business.
And yet here you are...right square in the middle of the asylum, posting like a mad man...what's that say about you?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621101
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Oh, I'll agree, your "average creationist" as you put it...yeah...they're looking for Pegasus...definitely. But here's why. If the theory were true...even on a scale of small changes over time, there would have to be fossils that depict that middle ground...you know...that area where the full evolvement hadn't yet occurred. I have no problem with small changes over time...as I believe they do indeed occur. But the idea that man evolved from an ape...no...I disagree. Well known scientists and medical authorities have studied and documented that the first Neaderthal skulls shows signs of severe rickets...a deficiency disease characterized by defective bone growth, so to assume these fossils are transitional forms because the size, formation, etc... is uncommon, s really stretching. The distinctive difference may be a malformation and not a specific species or change at all...its more probable that it was a deformed skull. I mean if there were multitudes of them and they could be found all over the world, it'd be much easier to swallow, but that simply isn't the case. Look at Java Man...Dubois finds a few skulls which may or may not be apes, gibbons, whatever...then finds a human femur some 50 ft or so nearby and assumes the bones all belong together, then decides its a missing link, and names it Java Man. Dubois later recants his own find, but without it, science has a huge missing link...so the scientific world refuses to believe what the very man who discovered the ape told us. It is not the link. It was most likely a gibbon. Bottom line is...what science calls transitional fossils is mere guess work. I would imagine if a whole species had evolved it would be a little easier to find more than a few isolated fossils.
There's no such thing as "full evolvement." That's my point, there is no "in between" that can be definitively pointed to, because everything is a transitional fossil. However, when comparing early hominids to modern humans there is a clear progression.

Neanderthals aren't even one of our ancestors, just part of the genus homo.

Malformation? How would that account for similar characteristics found in seperate specimens across many different hominids? You're telling me that every single hominid specimen we have found, regardless of the species, have all shared the same exact bone deformation?

Your "java man" story is a mischaracterization of what happened. You are right that the femur and the teeth probably did not go with the skull, but he never recanted his find. He said it belonged to a "genus allied with the gibbon." Note that does not mean it was a gibbon. The skull is much too large to be an ape, although it still does retain some ape like characteristics. How is that not a transitional fossil?

Ignoring the fact that your conception of the "java man" is wrong, I will grant you that fossils are not an exact science, and that mistakes can and do happen because of the massive time scales involved. However, even if we had never discovered a single fossil, the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming. The evidence from genetics alone is undeniable.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621102
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Let's go with one of the most common pieces of evidence for evolution: humans have 23 chromosomes, and chimps have 24. Strange, right? Shouldn't we also have 24 chromosomes if we both descended from a common ancestor? But when you examine the genome, you find that there is clear evidence of two "ancestral" chromosomes fusing into one chromosome, which is why we have one less than our closest cousins. Human chromosome 2 contains vestegial telomeres and there is a vestigal centromere. The telomeres are in the middle where the centromere should be, and there is a centromere on either side of the vestigal telomeres. Additionally, the DNA of both "sides" of the chromosome correspond almost exactly to the corresponding chimp chromosomes that appear to have fused into human chromosome 2.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621103
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Try paragraphs please.
You are really off base here. I think that you conceptualize evolution as one species giving birth out of whole cloth to an entirely new species - a cat birthing a dog, a mouse birthing an elephant, etc. That's not how it works. Slow, incremental changes add up over time. Simple as that.
And the evidence for common descent is overwhelming. Why else would we share much of our DNA with bananas?
Yea, I understand that evolution requires time. I'm simply stating that the fossil record does not support life evolving from a common ancestor. Each fossil found is unique to its own kind no matter if it's a bird, mammal, fish, etc. Nothing is found to suggest any kind of cross-over from one common ancestor to another species to another species and so on. Why evolutionists believe otherwise is beyond science itself. The fossil record proves evolution to contain many major holes.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 589,701 - 589,720 of719,622
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••