Paid to care?

meowzer

meowzer

Moderator
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3194844
I don't believe humans have been exempt from evolution. I just don't believe we began life here on earth with the rest of the creatures. For all I know some being called Yahwee (SP?) dropped off a couple pets on earth named Adam and Eve and flew away in his spaceship checking back from time to time.
If you look under the hood of a Buick Regal and a GMC truck you are bound to find some of the same parts there because both came from the same manufacturer. If all life were created by the same source, be it Big Bang incorporated or Creation Products Unlimited, shouldn't we expect to see some similarity whether that product came from the truck plant or the car plant?
Yay for Yahwee....does that make us all little wee wee's
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Reef_Dart21
http:///forum/post/3194617
lets play THE HARD HEADED CHRISTIANITY GAME!!!!
Heres the rules: I will give your hard evidence that supports evolution and you say GOD DID IT!!!
ready?
Peacocks are bright in colors and males have large feathers through natural selection because the prevelence of colors illustrates the male's ability to survive (because if he can escape predetors then he must be healthy)
Now you say???

I love this game...but there is one flaw in it. You said "you give hard evidence that supports." How about hard evidence that PROVES.
 
kingsmith

kingsmith

Member
The Only reason I would hope that the traditional western obey me or burn in hell god exist, is so that all the Hypocitical child abusing bums get punished by the god they claim to love so much

Happy Holidays
 
reef_dart21

reef_dart21

Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3194844
I don't believe humans have been exempt from evolution. I just don't believe we began life here on earth with the rest of the creatures. For all I know some being called Yahwee (SP?) dropped off a couple pets on earth named Adam and Eve and flew away in his spaceship checking back from time to time.
If you look under the hood of a Buick Regal and a GMC truck you are bound to find some of the same parts there because both came from the same manufacturer. If all life were created by the same source, be it Big Bang incorporated or Creation Products Unlimited, shouldn't we expect to see some similarity whether that product came from the truck plant or the car plant?
Your right we should see some similarity, however their is such a consistant pattern of different DNA between species that correspond to when they transitioned (branched) from our common ancestor in history.
An example, an insect had branched off, (according to the fossil records, dna) billions of years before we (as mammals) did causing our DNA to be 23% the same ,while other animals such as other mammals had roughly branched off roughly near each other (by near i mean millioons to thousands of years rather then billions) causing our DNA to stil contain much of our common ancetsor because their was not enough time for evolution to tweak our genetic code as much as it has insects.
Ok take your car and truck for example yes you do see similarity now is that just because they come form the same plant? perhaps. However if you were to look back in time to the first mobile device, such as a wagon, and progress through history you will see an addition of minor tweaks here and their until they dont eve resemble one another.
bicycle -common ancestor
so many years later
bicycle to car (car is a subranch) Bicy to truck (nother subbranch)
another so many years
Car took a different root than the truck (compare a car to humans)
truck took a different root than a car (compare a truck to apes)
As time progress the two subranches become further and further apart but still retain some of the originality because the branched off near the same time.
 
reef_dart21

reef_dart21

Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3194856
I love this game...but there is one flaw in it. You said "you give hard evidence that supports." How about hard evidence that PROVES.
Unfortunetly nothing in science is absolute, just like gravity. Science is always changing theirfore nothing in science will ever be 100% proven, niether will creationism.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Reef_Dart21
http:///forum/post/3194862
Unfortunetly nothing in science is absolute, just like gravity. Science is always changing theirfore nothing in science will ever be 100% proven, niether will creationism.
So then how can you completely dismiss it?
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Reef_Dart21
http:///forum/post/3194862
Unfortunetly nothing in science is absolute, just like gravity. Science is always changing theirfore nothing in science will ever be 100% proven, niether will creationism.
That is my point...both are unprovable....and neither can completely discredit the other...
There are many miracles that occur that can't be explained...
There are also many that can be.....
why can't it be both? I never understood this....the science crowd is quick to refuse and refute a possibility of a god/higher being.
The religious crowd does the same in reverse.
Why can't it be God's hand working through science?
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Reef_Dart21
http:///forum/post/3194875
How can you accept it?
It all comes down to what you think is the truth, and i think evolution is
You can't answer a question with a question. How can you dismiss the possibility of a GOD? Not speaking from a religious standpoint. What in science has shown you there is no possibility of a GOD?
 
reef_dart21

reef_dart21

Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3194876
That is my point...both are unprovable....and neither can completely discredit the other...
There are many miracles that occur that can't be explained...
There are also many that can be.....
why can't it be both? I never understood this....the science crowd is quick to refuse and refute a possibility of a god/higher being.
The religious crowd does the same in reverse.
Why can't it be God's hand working through science?
The science community has never done anything to try and disprove god or creationism, just to explains the creation of life. Which,brings doubt on creationism.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Reef_Dart21
http:///forum/post/3194883
The science community has never done anything to try and disprove god or creationism, just to explains the creation of life. Which,brings doubt on creationism.
True to a degree if you are refering to scientists...I am refering to the subscribers of the "religion" of science that refute GOD and call it all "fables" "Bedtime stories", and/or "fairy tales".
How many times in this thread alone have those three words been used in refrence to the possibility of a "god".
It doesn't bring doubt onto creationism either as the creationism belief is very vague on the creation...there is no detail describing how it was done...how long it took....so on and so forth....
 
kingsmith

kingsmith

Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3194878
You can't answer a question with a question. How can you dismiss the possibility of a GOD? Not speaking from a religious standpoint. What in science has shown you there is no possibility of a GOD?
Premise (1)
If God exists, God has not had the feelings of lust or envy.
Premise (2)
If God exists, God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows.
Premise (3)
If God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows, God knows lust and envy.
Premise (4)
If God knows lust and envy, God has had the feelings of lust and envy.
(5) God exists.
By hypothesis.
(6) .: God has had and has not had the feelings of lust and envy.
By (1) - (5).
(7) God does not exist.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Reef_Dart21
http:///forum/post/3194859
Your right we should see some similarity, however their is such a consistant pattern of different DNA between species that correspond to when they transitioned (branched) from our common ancestor in history.
An example, an insect had branched off, (according to the fossil records, dna) billions of years before we (as mammals) did causing our DNA to be 23% the same ,while other animals such as other mammals had roughly branched off roughly near each other (by near i mean millioons to thousands of years rather then billions) causing our DNA to stil contain much of our common ancetsor because their was not enough time for evolution to tweak our genetic code as much as it has insects.
Ok take your car and truck for example yes you do see similarity now is that just because they come form the same plant? perhaps. However if you were to look back in time to the first mobile device, such as a wagon, and progress through history you will see an addition of minor tweaks here and their until they dont eve resemble one another.
bicycle -common ancestor
so many years later
bicycle to car (car is a subranch) Bicy to truck (nother subbranch)
another so many years
Car took a different root than the truck (compare a car to humans)
truck took a different root than a car (compare a truck to apes)
As time progress the two subranches become further and further apart but still retain some of the originality because the branched off near the same time.
Wheel
Cart
Wagon
Car
Wheel
Unicycle
Bicycle
Motorcycle
Wheel
Pulley
Sprocket
Gear
Wheel
Water Wheel
Windmill
Propeller
It all still goes back to who invented the wheel.
Like I said, I don't doubt evolution but you can't go from a stone wheel to a metal sprocket in one step nor would you go from a wooden wheel to a propeller in one step. There has to be logical progressions.
You brought up the human appendix. Is their any hard scientific evidence of what that organ was used for? If that small evolutionary change has occurred so gradually over time shouldn't we also have seamless fossil records of our evolution from whatever ape like substance we started as?
 
reef_dart21

reef_dart21

Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3194878
You can't answer a question with a question. How can you dismiss the possibility of a GOD? Not speaking from a religious standpoint. What in science has shown you there is no possibility of a GOD?
To me, god is impossible because of evolution as well as the inconsistencies through out history and the sheer ignorance/arrogance of the church.
Catholics/Juedism believe in one god
Hinduism believes in many small gods and the large god hindu
Buddism belives in budha and other small g gods
now surely if their was a god, only one could exist right? Well buddhism has been around longer than jeudism and catholicism why isnt buddha god? Or why isnt Hindu? why isnt Ra?
religion creates comfort because humans are afraid of death. They try to explain the unknown by creating faith through religion.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Reef_Dart21
http:///forum/post/3194893
To me, god is impossible because of evolution as well as the inconsistencies through out history and the sheer ignorance/arrogance of the church.
Catholics/Juedism believe in one god
Hinduism believes in many small gods and the large god hindu
Buddism belives in budha and other small g gods
now surely if their was a god, only one could exist right? Well buddhism has been around longer than jeudism and catholicism why isnt buddha god? Or why isnt Hindu? why isnt Ra?
religion creates comfort because humans are afraid of death. They try to explain the unknown by creating faith through religion.

Those are religions...and subject to man's interpretation. I am not talking religion. You are arguing against religion. I m asking what in science has disproved in your eyes the possible existance of a GOD...not religion....just a GOD.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by KingSmith
http:///forum/post/3194890
Premise (1)
If God exists, God has not had the feelings of lust or envy.
Premise (2)
If God exists, God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows.
Premise (3)
If God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows, God knows lust and envy.
Premise (4)
If God knows lust and envy, God has had the feelings of lust and envy.
(5) God exists.
By hypothesis.
(6) .: God has had and has not had the feelings of lust and envy.
By (1) - (5).
(7) God does not exist.

I have never experienced murder, but I know of it....does this mean I don't exist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top