Prove there's a god.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#765653 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>No, University of Alabama. Played for Ray Perkins.

But I understand the assumption.

Thanks, man.
No worries chicky but I wasn't referring to you and foozball has to be one of the most bone headed games ever invented, no skill required.

I can see why you like it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765654 Aug 6, 2014
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
Our little animal lives on the ground and must worry about getting eaten by other animals.
At this point, it evades predators by running, jumping, etc.
(Are your arms completely useless for running and/or jumping? Try it yourself and see.)
If a critter comes along that's pretty much identical to the one above, except that it has slightly stronger breast muscles and/or perhaps forelimbs with something akin to feathers, then it may have an advantage when it comes to evading predators. Those traits (or that trait) may help it run a little faster of jump a little farther.
If the critter has an advantage, it'll stand a better chance of living long enough to reproduce and pass on its advantageous trait(s).
Do you really have that hard of a time envisioning that eventually, across enough generations, an animal will come along with an ability for rudimentary flight?
The feathers and wings of a flightless dinosaur would slow it down, making predators more likely to catch it. Not to mention the metabolic robbing of other vital functions to produce and support feathers and wings. It's a "just so" story. It's just so because Darwinism says it has to be.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765655 Aug 6, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Leaping into the air developed into a wing?!
You know how preposterous that sounds?
Michael Jordan grew wings. You didn't notice?

Seems like he should have played for the Toronto Raptors.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#765656 Aug 6, 2014
thewordofme wrote:

It was only around the late 1600's to mid 1700's that 'real' science started. Took awhile to get going and building the ranks of real scientists, so finally disproving spontaneous generation in the 1800's is really not that bad. Going to Wikipedia you will find that early 'naturalists' were already working on the problem well before Pasteur solved it.
You didn't disagree with me.
In today's world of instant communications around the whole world, and the accessibility of information on any subject from the interwebz, I would guess professors are teaching exactly what they should.....goddidit....no, wait, nature did it...:o)
Relating this to today's research, we know that the Bible is totally wrong on many things. We know that humans DID evolve from early pre-humans, and a few other things that I have written about on this forum before. However we haven't solved the 'Origin of Life' yet, as you well know.
Still workin' on it.
Instant communication only allows for false information to be spread quicker, almost instantly :)

I think your guess is wrong. Stats show that the majority of college professors in the US are leftist liberals. Conservatives are shunned out. It's not an impartial system anymore, it leans far too much to the left for our youth to get a fair education of politics.

We don't "know" that humans evolved from an ape ancestor, no more than we "know" the Big Bang happened or that we "knew" spontaneous generation was a fact.

We assume it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765657 Aug 6, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
That's super interesting science fiction.
But that's all it is.
Millions of years and probably millions of generations for that bird-thingie to develop flight-capable wings to escape it's muscular-breasted predator.
Hey now! That'd make cool movie.
There is no credible Darwinian explanation for the development of winged flight.

But there are numerous explanations.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#765658 Aug 6, 2014
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
What god?
The God you ask evidence for all the time, God.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#765659 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Michael Jordan grew wings. You didn't notice?
Seems like he should have played for the Toronto Raptors.
Only if they were feathered.

Tarred is optional.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765660 Aug 6, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you go to the Galapagos Islands, you'll see flightless birds with scrawny, useless wings.
The species could once fly. But eventually they couldn't compete for food with other more able flying birds, so they resorted to using their beaks between stones in the water for food. Over time, they developed longer beaks, and their feathers gradually atrophied.
Adaptation to the environment. Evolution in action. Seeing is believing. No doubt whatsoever.
The loss of innovative features is far easier to explain than the innovation.

It requires no new genetic information.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#765661 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:

There is no credible Darwinian explanation for the development of winged flight.
But there are numerous explanations.
I know. The atheists swear up and down that a creature without wings can grow wings over millions of years and generations. It makes no logical sense.

What other explanation will you offer?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765662 Aug 6, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You will not find a legitimate scientist who does not agree with what I have posited.
Not a single one.
Buck maybe, but no true scientist.
I agree birds can lose the ability for flight.

That seems an odd way to support the amassing of numerous new and complex innovations by a similar process.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#765663 Aug 6, 2014
So this restaurant was giving a 15% discount to folks that said Grace before their meal.

http://www.wfmynews2.com/story/news/local/201...

Freaktard atheists had a conniption fit.

Christian persecution at its finest.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#765664 Aug 6, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>The God you ask evidence for all the time, God.
Sure, but....

http://i.imgur.com/3ozf12P.jpg

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#765665 Aug 6, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
I'm thinking of something like a velociraptor that has useful front arms but evolves wings instead.
Or a creature like a small T- Rex, with little bitty arms that evolved into wings that can't help them fly.
But why would it evolve that way? Arms and hands are tremendously more useful tools than wings.
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
I'm thinking of something like a velociraptor that has useful front arms but evolves wings instead.
Or a creature like a small T- Rex, with little bitty arms that evolved into wings that can't help them fly.
But why would it evolve that way? Arms and hands are tremendously more useful tools than wings.
Birds of prey might disagree. But then again, velociraptors, nor T-Rex had arms or hands, they did, however have claws.

Vestiges
http://jerrycoyne.uchicago.edu/excerpt.html

Tetrapod zoology; Clubs, spurs, spikes and claws on the hands of birds (part I)
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/...

Tetrapod zoology; Raven, the claw-handed bird, last of the phorusrhacids
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/...

Dissecting an Emu.____*May be too graphic for some*____
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/...

The hoatzin (Opisthocomus hoazin), also known as the stinkbird, or Canje pheasant, is a species of tropical bird found in swamps, riparian forest and mangrove of the Amazon and the Orinoco Delta in South America. It is notable for having chicks that possess claws on two of their wing digits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoatzin

Those articles and links are easy reads and might give you some insight.










Or not.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#765666 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Irreducible complexity has never been disproved.
Here is a refereed article from mainstream scientists supporting IR published last year:
Date: 15 Jun 2013
Integration of syntactic and semantic properties of the DNA code reveals chromosomes as thermodynamic machines converting energy into information
-Georgi Muskhelishvili, Andrew Travers
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs0...
Sorry to have to disagree with you again Buck, but the evidence says otherwise.

Below is just one of MANY citations that agree with my position. All a scientist has to do is provide one example that is contrary to 'IC', and the whole concept is busted. This has been done on at least 3 examples that Behe himself provided in his book.

"Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". Evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved, and describe Behe's claim as an argument from incredulity. In the 2005 Kitzmiller vs.'Dover Area School District' trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_comp...

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#765668 Aug 6, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Well yeah.
Imagine if God made chickens able to fly, cows to run fast, goats to fight back, monkeys that can create weapons or lettuce to be poisonous.
His people would be very different.
Instead, people have conjured up a god that can't fly, run, or fight.

All he can do is be poisonous.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#765669 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The feathers and wings of a flightless dinosaur would slow it down, making predators more likely to catch it. Not to mention the metabolic robbing of other vital functions to produce and support feathers and wings. It's a "just so" story. It's just so because Darwinism says it has to be.
It isn't like I'm saying it happens overnight... I'm not even saying it happens at all, not as statement of fact.

All I'm doing is hitting upon bits and pieces of what the theory says... whereas Garf is more concerned with misrepresenting it.

Wild ground fowl can't fly very well, if they can be said have that ability at all... but, give them open ground, and I'll be damned if it's easy to run one down... those feathers and wings are highly advantageous (for them) in that regard. I don't see why the same can't be postulated for critters that lived long ago.

Anyways...

How you been, Buck?

I still think the story about "William Fuzz" is one of the funniest things I've ever read on Topix.

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#765670 Aug 6, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
The God you ask evidence for all the time, God.
We wait and wait and wait.

And we wait some more.

But still, not one iota of evidence of a god.

Any god at all.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765671 Aug 6, 2014
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to have to disagree with you again Buck, but the evidence says otherwise.
Below is just one of MANY citations that agree with my position. All a scientist has to do is provide one example that is contrary to 'IC', and the whole concept is busted. This has been done on at least 3 examples that Behe himself provided in his book.
"Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". Evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved, and describe Behe's claim as an argument from incredulity. In the 2005 Kitzmiller vs.'Dover Area School District' trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_comp...
Wrong.

Judge Jones in Kitzmiller relied on the rebuttal of Ken Miller, who proposed to refute irreducible complexity of the flagellum by citing the functional precursor, the Type III Secretory System.

As was pointed out by Behe, and Scott Minnich, one of the world's leading researchers on the flagellum, the Type III Secretory System AROSE AFTER the flagellum, and could not be a precursor.

Miller's refutation of the mousetrap argument is also rubbish. He used an intelligently designed innovation wherein he invented his own functional machine from the mousetrap deprived of parts.

Try again.

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#765672 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree birds can lose the ability for flight.
That seems an odd way to support the amassing of numerous new and complex innovations by a similar process.
It is what it is, Buck, even if it seem odd to you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765673 Aug 6, 2014
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't like I'm saying it happens overnight... I'm not even saying it happens at all, not as statement of fact.
All I'm doing is hitting upon bits and pieces of what the theory says... whereas Garf is more concerned with misrepresenting it.
Wild ground fowl can't fly very well, if they can be said have that ability at all... but, give them open ground, and I'll be damned if it's easy to run one down... those feathers and wings are highly advantageous (for them) in that regard. I don't see why the same can't be postulated for critters that lived long ago.
Anyways...
How you been, Buck?
I still think the story about "William Fuzz" is one of the funniest things I've ever read on Topix.
If you like my jokes, all is forgiven.

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
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 5 min KellyP in Jersey 2,107
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 5 min Joe Fortuna 49,413
Exactly HOW did O.J. Simpson end up being a dou... 7 min Doctor REALITY 2
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 22 min Rosa_Winkel 445,752
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 26 min RoSesz 646,940
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 37 min WasteWater 105,680
topix drops human sexuality forum.......this be... 56 min WasteWater 27
More from around the web