Prove there's a god.

Posted in the Top Stories Forum

Comments (Page 30,201)

Showing posts 604,001 - 604,020 of679,680
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Today we pray”

Since: Jul 12

"tomorrow we win"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636060
Jul 3, 2013
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>It's falsifiable, for one.
In what way?

“Today we pray”

Since: Jul 12

"tomorrow we win"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636061
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact, religious faith is the ultimate cop-out. It's called faith because there's no evidence and bullshit would be a dead giveaway to all but the world's most retarded godbots such as you. A godbot invokes faith when they know there's no merit to their views.
100% wrong! We all have faith, including you buckwheat.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636062
Jul 3, 2013
 
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Well...let's see...if evolutionary scientists who are experts on the Cambrian fossil record agree that animaly phyla appear abruptly, and that the few Precambrian fossils (including the “enigmatic” Ediacarans) are not ancestral to the Cambrian animals....then it pretty much blow the Darwin theory of evolution completely out of the water. I mean, if you wanna continue to insist that all life forms evolved, using the fossil record as your key evidence, then by all means, do that. However, scientific evidence clearly cannot prove that and two expert evolutionary scientists have very clearly stated such. That article had nothing to do with dates being changed. Did you even read it? It was clear, the two evolutionary scientists, who, again, are EXPERTS on the Cambrian fossils and who are not creationists...clearly stated that animaly phyla appear abruptly, and that the few Precambrian fossils (including the “enigmatic” Ediacarans) are not ancestral to the Cambrian animals. They had no agenda...there was no "need", as you state, for a certain answer. There was an abrupt appearance of phyla and there is no fossil record to prove that phyla evolved from anything.
It seems to me you may not be biased, but rather, just flat refuse to accept the fact that your Darwinist' beliefs have no true evidence of proof available.
You can smart off about pro evolution all day long, but until you can provide proof of how that huge, diverse, phyla of life forms came into existence all of the sudden via your evolutionary theory...you're just showing your ignorance and refusal to accept factual data. The reality is...you're no different than the creationists you love so much to throw off on.
2 whole scientists? Out of how many?

The fossils record is not even necessary to prove we evolved. Our dna does that.

Yes, some phyla did appear abruptly, as in many millions of years. Abrupt is a relative term here.

We evolved. Get over it.

And if we didn't, I expect those 2 scientist shall be receiving the nobel shortly.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636063
Jul 3, 2013
 
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would atmospheric conditions matter? It would not alter half life. During the Cretaceous, there were no ice caps on eartn. During the Ice Ages, there was entire continents iced over. Atmospgeric conditions have no bearing on decay of elements
Eh hem...
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s. This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.
Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the “clock” is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C "clock is not possible.
The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the Earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the Earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the Earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the Earth. Overall, the energy of the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing,so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the atmoospheric conditions not affecting the half life

“I'm not Religious ”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636064
Jul 3, 2013
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes. Science sees the world like a child.
But Like a child, the more we know the more we realize that we never really knew much to begin with. My point being is that I have issues when someone says "science knows.."
well..... science can only guess at the answers based on the gathering of information that it presently has but does it really know? can it say with 100 percent certainty??

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636065
Jul 3, 2013
 
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
It has not...What...your circular reasoning of "we evolved because we evolved" when the evidence actually shows that vast and diverse life forms appeared abruptly with no evidence of any life forms available that they evolved from can be produced leaves no reasonable doubt? Are you kidding me? LOL...HILARIOUS!!!
That's not what happened, there is evidence of precambrian fauna, and "abruptly" means many millions of years. There is no room for reasonable doubt.

But hey, I thought the dating techniques were all messed up and not reliable? If that's the case, why do you take the word of the scientists when it comes to the length of the cambrian?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636066
Jul 3, 2013
 
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Uniformitarianism is the ASSUMPTION that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. Once again...it's an ASSUMPTION!
Faith isn't a cop out or an excuse. I don't need or require proof, therefore....I don't need an excuse. You do, however, because you lack faith.
I am aware of that - uniformitarianism implies an assumption - I just told you that this assumption is necessary for science to function. We also must assume that we are not brains suspended in vats and that what we see actually corresponds to "something." Assumptions are necessary.

Faith is a cop out. But according to your logic, I can say that I have faith in science, and therefore it doesn't require any proof.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636067
Jul 3, 2013
 
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps, as human beings, we deceive ourselves...particularly when we assume we have the right to place ourselves on the same playing field as an immortal God. Personally, I think to assume a God might think on the same intelligence level of man is kinda silly.
Did it ever occur to you that there is no reason to even assume that a god exists?

But you're right, it's absurd that I can think of better solutions than your immortal deity. Would I have made it possible for cancerous cells to proliferate in the human body? Would I have made our arteries prone to clogging? Nope, but your super intelligent god did.

But he's mysterious, so it's ok.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636068
Jul 3, 2013
 
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh no.
The Cambrian's only mystery, is the fewer pieces of evidence we find. Like there was some kind of problem with fossils being formed (as explained by the harsh chemicals that were orese t in the soil).
But as far as what is found there... It is pretty much what we expect. Very simple organisms.
So yes, we have it all figured out. Later on these simple organisms would evolve into complex organisms.
Can I make some recommendation? You have questions, which is good. Why dont you complete a small geology course over a holiday or something, to better interpret fossil evidence? I am not meaning any disrespect, but it would help you know the meaning of the geologic column and the fossil record.
As far as evolution goes, had we found a rabbit, a lion, a T-Rex or Dunkleostus in the Cambrian strata... Just one. One itty bitty lion or rabbit, that would destroy evolution theory.
Can you therefore see, since no such evidence has been found, that evolution almost certainly is a fact?
First, I honestly appreciate your sincere attempt to help me understand and how nice you are about it...I can't say that about most posters. However, although I'm far from a science whiz, I do understand most of it. and what stands out the most is that regardless of whether we've found a rabbit or not...expert evolutionary scientists have documented that that the few Precambrian fossils (including the “enigmatic” Ediacarans) are not ancestral to the Cambrian animals. With that said, the abrupt, Cambrian explosion if you will, of of all the major animal phyla leaves the very reasonable question of...what evidence, via fossils, do we have to prove that phyla evolved?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636069
Jul 3, 2013
 
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not compartmentalizing. I'm open minded and unlike you, I have the ability to be both analytical and spiritual. I'm intelligent to figure out that I have a choice to either have faith in the assumptions of science or faith in God. There is a vast amount of physical evidence to support many scientific theories...I don't dispute that nor do I doubt all of it. There is also a vast amount of spiritual evidence to support God...you aren't spiritual...and have no understanding of it. If it best suits your personal needs to belittle and demean people who have knowledge of something you have no understanding of...then do so.
Define "spiritual evidence." There is no such thing.

I have certainly experinced feelings you could call "spiritual." Every human being has the capacity for it, because we all have similar brains. The feeling of awe is nothing more than a mental phenomena that can be produced in the lab, or with drugs, or with meditation, or by religion. No outside agent is required.

Yeah, you only doubt the science that conflicts with your unfounded religious views. Crazy coincidence. You probably would doubt evolution anyway, even if you weren't a christian, right?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636070
Jul 3, 2013
 
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea...I can't speak for the rest of the world. My beliefs are personal and not influenced by a religious group.
I know. You thought up all this jesus stuff on your own.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636071
Jul 3, 2013
 
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol...I was finally able to access your little site. While you sit behind your little computer feeling all superior to me and sending me websites such as that, as if I'm beneath your level intelligence, I laugh. Do you really think your rude gestures of superiority show your intelligence? FYI...They don't....just shows your character.
What are you talking about? How did that insult you? It was a concise and easy to understand explanation of how evidence works.

“Today we pray”

Since: Jul 12

"tomorrow we win"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636072
Jul 3, 2013
 
timn17 wrote:
Did it ever occur to you that there is no reason to even assume that a god exists?
Did it ever occur to you that there is no reason NOT to assume that God exists?!

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636073
Jul 3, 2013
 
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, bit the people who doubt, does not matter.
My opinions on evolution, does not matter. If I do not agree with something, well, tough. I am too much of a noob to be considered to have a 'valid opinion'.
If Oprah Winfrey, Barack Obama or Nelson Mandela have oroblems with evolution theory, also. They are noobs in the field. Their opinion does not matter.
The scholars, who did the experiments, who did the digging, who observed the testing and drawn conclusions, those who dedicated their lives in order for us to gain broader insight, THEIR insights matter.
Their is no doubt amongst them. Therefore, there is no doubt for me
I agree for the most part, with the exception that although there is no doubt among them, their insights are based on many assumptions, a lot of influence from Darwin, and no concrete evidence to support evolution prior to the Precambrian explosion.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636074
Jul 3, 2013
 
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
There are many that can't understand how someone can be both analytical and spiritual. They just look at folks like that and consider it Doublethink (cognitive dissonance)
But I know that it is possible to believe that way. I know, I'm also one of those.
It's not cognitive dissonance, it's an example of you resolving the cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the uneasy sensation of two competing, mutually exclusive ideas in the mind. You have resolved it by choosing faith over evidence. You (not necessarily *you*) see the evidence for evolution and, to you, it stands in stark contrast to your faith, so you decide that the evidence isn't good enough.

And sure, you can be logical with some things and spiritual with others. There's nothing wrong with being spiritual. My point was that it's absurd to apply impossible standards of proof to some things and none at all to others. A religious person can be perfectly reasonable when it comes to discussing science that doesn't "conflict" with their religious views, but touch on evolution and they insist that they won't believe it until they watch it unfold in a time machine.

Did you ever wonder that maybe there's a reason that faith is a central tenet of most religions? "Don't think about this too much. Just believe."

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636075
Jul 3, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good. Then you'll understand;
Based on all the available evidence, life cannot create itself.
Life didn't exist, and now it does, and there is no evidence for a god. QED.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636076
Jul 3, 2013
 
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>But Like a child, the more we know the more we realize that we never really knew much to begin with. My point being is that I have issues when someone says "science knows.."
well..... science can only guess at the answers based on the gathering of information that it presently has but does it really know? can it say with 100 percent certainty??
No. No such thing as 100% certainty. Science attempts to explain our observations, that's all, and the longer a theory survives and the more predictions it makes and the more ways we devise to falsify it, the higher chance it has of being "true." There's no way to 100% confirm anything though.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636077
Jul 3, 2013
 
timn17 wrote:
Science sees the world like a child.
Not anymore it doesn't. They're selling science now. It's like Hollywood. When Craig Ventor did his thing the headline read, "artificial life created in lab!". And I'm sure we'll be seeing that type of deceptive headline again soon.

Science is not innocent anymore, if it ever was. It's supposed to be. Technically the science itself is innocent; it's the people performing, interpreting and promoting/lobbying it that ruin the innocence of science.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636078
Jul 3, 2013
 
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
First, I honestly appreciate your sincere attempt to help me understand and how nice you are about it...I can't say that about most posters. However, although I'm far from a science whiz, I do understand most of it. and what stands out the most is that regardless of whether we've found a rabbit or not...expert evolutionary scientists have documented that that the few Precambrian fossils (including the “enigmatic” Ediacarans) are not ancestral to the Cambrian animals. With that said, the abrupt, Cambrian explosion if you will, of of all the major animal phyla leaves the very reasonable question of...what evidence, via fossils, do we have to prove that phyla evolved?
Fossils.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#636079
Jul 3, 2013
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is saying that.
Oh yeah...they're saying beyond reasonable doubt it has been proven that we are the product of evolution, because science has the evidence. Science absolutely does not.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 604,001 - 604,020 of679,680
|
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.

617 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 lightbeamrider 216,621
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 2 min KiMare 89,478
Girls snapchat names?(dirty) 3 min lewy1221 224
3 Word Game (Feb '12) 3 min Velvet MJK 3,984
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 4 min Sheilaa 109,489
The Word Association Game (Apr '11) 6 min Velvet MJK 435
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 min Michael 511,901
•••
•••
•••