Prove there's a god.

Posted in the Top Stories Forum

Comments (Page 29,498)

Showing posts 589,941 - 589,960 of680,892
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621115
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
What "kind" are trilobites?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621117
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay...let me clarify, not full evolvement...but from point A to present...but I disagree...not everything is a transitional fossil...EVERYTHING is a BIG word. Lol..just being picky for the sake of argument...
Ok.
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so they aren't our ancestors. I concur. I was using the Neanderthal example because science sees the skulls of the Neanderthal as not only a transitional fossil but one of the many missing links. Take the Neanderthal fossils, who is not our ancestor, totally out of the picture, and how does that effect the scientic theory of evolution as it relates to mankind?
It doesn't.
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
No that is not what I'm telling you at all. I'm talking about one discovery. If Dubois' discovery doesn't hold water, and we really can't definitively say it does because rickets may have accounted for the shape and size of the skulls...So let's, for the sake of argument remove those transitional fossils from history and what does that do for the theory as a whole? Similar characteristics means nothing to me. Humans share similar characteristics with countless other species...that doesn't mean we evolved from them or they evolved from us.
His discovery does hold water. The "controversy" is made up by creationists. His qualifications don't matter, what he found is what he found. His interpretations don't even really matter, because the fossil itself is available for other scientists to examine and confirm.

Removing transitional fossils does nothing. It removes the "sexy" aspect of evolution that holds a lot of popular appeal. All the proof we need for common descent is found in our DNA. This is ignoring all the other lines of evidence.
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh it could well be a transitional fossil...but there is absolutely no truth or definitive evidence to factually state that it a transitional fossil from ape to man, which is exactly what science wants us to believe. He said it belonged to a genus allied with a gibbon...to assume this is a missing link between ape and man, again is a stretch, but science throws that discovery right in the mix, because they need it to fill a gap.
How do you define "proof?" It is a skull that is clearly hominid in shape, having a large brain case, but still retaining some ape like characteristics. That's as good as it gets.
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't just MY conception on Java Man...there is widespread controversy regarding Dubois' find in Java. For Pete's sake! Dubois didn't even have formal training in geology or paleontology. He wasn't even qualified to determine the date and location of geological deposits in Java. After finding "java man" he changed the date to Tertiary to support the claim that the specimen was primitive. I think it's fairly safe to question any of his work on Java man. Also, I don't dispute evolution...I am disputing the Darwinian theory of the evolution of man...there is a significant difference.
There is widespread controversy in creationist circles. That is not relevant.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621118
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Neanderthal? Naw. So let me ask, how many million more years would U say that it would take for sea gulls to develop gills for oxygen for diving for food? If evolution is true then this must happen. Why not? What further evolution should man go through? If intelligence isn't necessary then how could so-called non-intelligence decide at what stage which species is fit for the environment? Evolution says it just happens. If rats began to walk upright would they become more intelligent over millions of years?
Sorry, but the crocoduck would falsify most of the theory of evolution, not support it.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621119
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have the worst case of DENIAL i have ever seen..
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!

Since: Mar 11

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621120
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Greens - tuf wrote:
<quoted text>Gee, thanks for that.
Well it is pointless of you expecting people on here to explain things when we have such great information at our finger tips. People on here aren't locked up in labs living their life for their work. Some can pop out answers to questions but most can't. I find when an explanation is given it is often rejected.
Though if you go and search the info it is all there. They tell you exactly what there missing, where they expect to find it, why they haven't yet.
To all those who keep saying it's all a lie. Look the word lie up for a start. If someone has something wrong it isn't a lie, they just got it wrong. Can you imagine scientists from all over the world continuing such a lie? and if some just got it wrong, there's all those other's on there tales, checking, correcting if needed, re-checking, debating, All the people out there in the field millions of them working on these issues.
People thinking we have only been here 5 or 10 thousand years. I am very uneducated but just walking around rocks and beaches, just sitting and watching the natural world should tell you it is impossible for that to be true.


“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621121
May 3, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Show me a fossilized Ipad and I will show you a cristard. The Ipad is however a transitional device, and like all hardware it is evolving also.
Thank you Aura, for making my point...EVERYTHING is not a transitional fossil.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621122
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you Aura, for making my point...EVERYTHING is not a transitional fossil.
All living organisms are transitional forms, thus all fossils are transitional fossils. Mechanical objects are not fossils.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621123
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621124
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621125
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621126
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621127
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621128
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621129
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621131
May 3, 2013
 
.

100% PROOF Pope Francis is ANTICHRIST_______

https://www.youtube.com/watch...


.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621132
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621133
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621134
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621135
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 589,941 - 589,960 of680,892
|
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.

640 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 min Divinity Surgeon 217,262
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 2 min RiccardoFire 89,610
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min Michael 512,342
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 min Pegasus 250,440
87% of White Women have slept with Black Men (Nov '09) 4 min Johnny 1,355
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 6 min Student 38,033
avandia 2014 10 min LisaTx 81
Girls snapchat names?(dirty) 13 min lalala 287
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 53 min Joshuas Polaris 2000 596,624
•••
•••
•••