Prove there's a god.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#623044 May 11, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Ahahahah. Evolution "violates" entropy and the "law of biogenisis." You can't, on the one hand, come in here and say that you understand evolution, and then post crap like this. He started out instantly with the most easily debunked fallacies that apologists always try to use. Evolution has *nothing* to do with the 2nd law. And there is no "law of biogenisis."
Actually there is.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_...

But this was to counter the notion that flies sprang from nothing in dead animals, and has nothing to do with modern abiogenesis.

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#623045 May 11, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a good analogy
Is there a good analogy for wearing shoes and being homosexual?

Enlighten me.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#623046 May 11, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Responsible" doesn't answer how life got as diverse as it is, the theory of evolution answers the real questions of "how," the important question. Saying "god dun it" does not answer anything, it literally answers nothing because there is no evidence that there is a god, there is no evidence that anything outside of natural influences has had any effect on the universe, and knowing "who" does not tell you anything.
Does knowing your computer is built by Apple explain to you how it was built? Does knowing your car is manufactured by Nissan explain to you how to built an internal combustion engine or how that engine works?
Funny U should ask! Let me tell ya! As far as the last part goes, I'd probably not know exactly how my computer was built but I would know that it was built by Apple.

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#623047 May 11, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Well in his case it seems to have been an indicator.
But pretending to be doctor and actually becoming one is a far cry from pretending to be a girl and becoming gay.
Not sure if it even requires schooling to achieve that goal. lol
You don't become gay.

You are or you are not gay.

It's as simple as that.

I don't understand the confusion.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#623048 May 11, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
What do U mean WTF?! Isn't that what evolution states?! That one animal evolves into another for the purpose of adaptation and survival?! That fish evolved and grew lungs for air and started living on land?! For U to ignore the real questions and pick out "trying" just shows that U don't have as much faith in the theory as U think and the tactic of avoidance is all U have, oh, and Wikipedia!!
Again, evolution doesn't "say" anything.

Also, that's not even what the theory of evolution says, that's what creationists say.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#623049 May 11, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny U should ask! Let me tell ya! As far as the last part goes, I'd probably not know exactly how my computer was built but I would know that it was built by Apple.
Which doesn't help you build one, does it?

Also, are you lazy or is English not your primary language, "U" is not a word.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#623050 May 11, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Ahahahah. Evolution "violates" entropy and the "law of biogenisis." You can't, on the one hand, come in here and say that you understand evolution, and then post crap like this. He started out instantly with the most easily debunked fallacies that apologists always try to use. Evolution has *nothing* to do with the 2nd law. And there is no "law of biogenisis."
U didn't read the full post, did U? The link didn't concern U and I knew that folks like U are too closed-minded to give time to listen. And U and other evolutionists ignore the second law of thermodynamics dealing with enthropy because it doesn't fit well with evolution theory. And whatever doesn't fit gives way to some other outstanding explanation that is only speculation but seems to fit and idiots believe it because they are told to!

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#623051 May 11, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
What do U mean WTF?! Isn't that what evolution states?! That one animal evolves into another for the purpose of adaptation and survival?! That fish evolved and grew lungs for air and started living on land?! For U to ignore the real questions and pick out "trying" just shows that U don't have as much faith in the theory as U think and the tactic of avoidance is all U have, oh, and Wikipedia!!
No, the reason I picked out the word "trying" is because it shows a huge misunderstanding on your part. Animals don't think "hey, I'd like to have wings," and then "try" to grow them.

And what questions did you ask?

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#623052 May 11, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Yep, thank g-d Carradine wasn't a flaming, gay politician...
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story...
...or they would be telling the little ones that he should be someone to be proud to emulate too.
Is this your way of saying you are a closeted admirer of Carradine?

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#623053 May 11, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there a good analogy for wearing shoes and being homosexual?
Enlighten me.
No, no. He mentioned the shoes but I figured it was more than just that. Most times when a boy prefers to wear a dress that he know is for girls he may be telling U something. With girls it may be as subtle as wanting to sport a boys haircut or take on the mannerisms of boys. It's harder to tell with girls because nowadays it's acceptable for girls to be as equal to boys without being defined as gay so early on.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#623054 May 11, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
U didn't read the full post, did U? The link didn't concern U and I knew that folks like U are too closed-minded to give time to listen. And U and other evolutionists ignore the second law of thermodynamics dealing with enthropy because it doesn't fit well with evolution theory. And whatever doesn't fit gives way to some other outstanding explanation that is only speculation but seems to fit and idiots believe it because they are told to!
It has NOTHING to do with evolution. Let me repeat that. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has absolutely nothing at all to do with evolution. If you understood evolution, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you wouldn't be parroting this nonsense you read on apologist sites. That's why I don't take you seriously - you constantly commit the most basic and ridiculous errors.

And I did listen. That guy states the 2nd law as "things decrease, not improve," which is not at all what it says. It says "the entropy of a closed system never decreases," and he intentionally misrepresents it and fallaciously applies it to evolution. Earth is not a closed system, and anyways, the 2nd law applies to *energy,* not complexity. It does not preclude the formation of complex organisms, because it has *nothing* to do with them. Again, it concerns energy - it is not a "law of disorder" as some creationists term it.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#623055 May 11, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't become gay.
You are or you are not gay.
It's as simple as that.
I don't understand the confusion.
Maybe you have to be gay to really understand gayness?
But I see it as a choice, a or preference and some are swinging both ways.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#623056 May 11, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
U didn't read the full post, did U? The link didn't concern U and I knew that folks like U are too closed-minded to give time to listen. And U and other evolutionists ignore the second law of thermodynamics dealing with enthropy because it doesn't fit well with evolution theory. And whatever doesn't fit gives way to some other outstanding explanation that is only speculation but seems to fit and idiots believe it because they are told to!
And trust me, I am not closed minded, but being open minded does not mean "humoring absurdly fallacious arguments."

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#623057 May 11, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there is.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_...
But this was to counter the notion that flies sprang from nothing in dead animals, and has nothing to do with modern abiogenesis.
"Law" implies an incontrovertible rule of the universe. Yes, there is the *observation* of biogenisis, in that we have only seen life come from life, but it is not a law.

But ok, lol.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#623058 May 11, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
U didn't read the full post, did U? The link didn't concern U and I knew that folks like U are too closed-minded to give time to listen. And U and other evolutionists ignore the second law of thermodynamics dealing with enthropy because it doesn't fit well with evolution theory. And whatever doesn't fit gives way to some other outstanding explanation that is only speculation but seems to fit and idiots believe it because they are told to!
The second law evolution argument is pure garbage.

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#623059 May 11, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no. He mentioned the shoes but I figured it was more than just that. Most times when a boy prefers to wear a dress that he know is for girls he may be telling U something. With girls it may be as subtle as wanting to sport a boys haircut or take on the mannerisms of boys. It's harder to tell with girls because nowadays it's acceptable for girls to be as equal to boys without being defined as gay so early on.
http://www.operatorchan.org/g/src/13657298111...

Skirts and all.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#623060 May 11, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>It has NOTHING to do with evolution. Let me repeat that. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has absolutely nothing at all to do with evolution. If you understood evolution, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you wouldn't be parroting this nonsense you read on apologist sites. That's why I don't take you seriously - you constantly commit the most basic and ridiculous errors.
And I did listen. That guy states the 2nd law as i"things decrease, not improve," which is not at all what it says. It says "the entropy of a closed system never decreases," and he intentionally misrepresents it and fallaciously applies it to evolution. Earth is not a closed system, and anyways, the 2nd law applies to *energy,* not complexity. It does not preclude the formation of complex organisms, because it has *nothing* to do with them. Again, it concerns energy - it is not a "law of disorder" as some creationists term it.
Be for real!! U say stuff that U find from someone else that tries to rationalize the faults in the theory. Why do U think people die or things deteriorate, stars explode and atoms breakdown?! Complexity is no stranger to entropy, who taught U otherwise? Now go back (since U've started) and here everything else out while dwelling on your contradiction that the second law only deals with energy and not complexities, oh, which are made up of energies.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#623061 May 11, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Be for real!! U say stuff that U find from someone else that tries to rationalize the faults in the theory. Why do U think people die or things deteriorate, stars explode and atoms breakdown?! Complexity is no stranger to entropy, who taught U otherwise? Now go back (since U've started) and here everything else out while dwelling on your contradiction that the second law only deals with energy and not complexities, oh, which are made up of energies.
Child, you need to actually learn the theory of evolution before you even try understand it.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#623062 May 11, 2013
Everyone becomes offended when people ask the real questions. Most of yall here are some characters. Claiming to have the truth, U distort it with speculations and proclaim them as truth. Not one person has humbled themselves to the realization that they may not have the entire truth. No one has acknowledged that science makes mistakes and that more is needed to be known to really know that certain alledged events are accurate. When those questions are ask these people scatter like roaches and the ones remaining treat the situation like war. Some of U need to get over yourselves for a while and have a real discussion about contradictions on both sides and then U'll see that there was a whole set of information that U're missing.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#623063 May 11, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Meaning that you don't believe in the existence of any god or gods.

And that's it.

If you have a feeling that their might be a god or gods or some kind of supreme being, you are not an atheist.

It's pretty damn simple.
I am atheist.

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
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min June VanDerMark 627,482
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 8 min White Male_ 3,361
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 30 min RiccardoFire 615,773
Play "end of the word" part 2 35 min andet1987 694
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 58 min AussieBobby 278,423
You are of your 'father'.......the devil 1 hr andet1987 5
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr Neville Thompson 42,253
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 hr HipGnosis 14,261
More from around the web