God exists
- Thread starter (L)
- Start date
Almost every European, whether they were evolutionist or creationist, was racist. Using non-scientific arguments like that will get you nowhere, Bridge.
Actually, it is a FACT that the creature is a transitional fossil of a bird-reptile.
Hey Bridge, where is this 'debate' you are talking about? I think you are talking bullshit, as usual. Evolutionist don't debate 'philosophy'. You are just making another poor attempt to try and convince us that evolutionists are going purely on faith.
Bridge, I would ask you to provide evidence supporting that there is a debate between experts about the fossil.
Let me repeat that. You obviously seem to conviently ignore the parts of my message which ask you to provide evidence to support your proclaimed FACTS. Submit evidence to show that experts are still debating whether Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil.
Archaeopteryx is recognised as a true transitional fossil. It has been for decades. Only a few oddball creationists try to say that the fossil is a forgery (which is a load of bull) You know this, but are trying desperately to deny the facts.
Here is a link, Bridge, supporting these facts:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
Merely because you deny the facts, Bridge, does not make them go away. You cannot hide behind your lies forever.
Archaeopteryx supports the fact that birds evolved from reptiles.
I'll do that when you give me a complete history of Julius Caesar. Until you can do that, I will be forced to believe that Julius Caesar never existed, because you don't have the 'details'.
Let's assume that Julius Caesar did exist. If he really did, why can't you tell us his entire history? Where he grew up, who his first girlfriend was, at what age (including month and day) that he learned to walk, etc.
See how ridiculous your request is? If you still don't, I think you have serious problems.
Even better, Bridge, give me details of your god. Give me his name, his address, his favourite colour, how tall he is, who is first girlfriend was. Tell me how your God was made. Tell me how he designed the Earth.
Now the shoe is on the other foot. When you give me every detail about God and Julius Caesar, I will go and investigate exactly how reptiles and birds evolved (even though I don't have a degree).
Bullshit. This is debate. You are claiming there is a creator. I am claiming things evolved. When are you going to present your side of the case, Bridge?
You are STILL dodging the principal questions. Where is YOUR evidence? I have asked that I multitude of time.
Why when I ask for evidence, you keep squealing questions at me? Why do you stick your fingers in your ears when I ask for evidence to support your theory?
What have you got to hide, Bridge? Why can't you answer my SIMPLE request. I'm not asking impossible questions (like you are), but very simple ones. I want evidence. Are you afraid that if you present your 'evidence', I will call your bluff?
Actually, the experiment did produce the building blocks of life. I keep repeating this. Miller's experiment (and many more after him) produced amino acids.
And scientists have repeated Miller's experiment hundreds of times with conditions that simulate an early earth.
Do you have any evidence to support the fact that the conditions simulated were NOT those of early earths, and that the experiment did NOT produce amino acids?
Although we have hundreds of transitional forms clearly showing macroevolution.
It's not faith, Bridge. It's science. Our theory fits the facts. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
What are you going to do when we finally do create life in the laboratory, Bridge? I can imagine what you are going to say...
"But they don't know exactly what conditions existed on prehistoric earth".
What are you going to say when the majority of the gaps are filled, Bridge?
"Now you've got TWO gaps instead of one! Hahaha."
Bridge, you have conviently ignored the list of speciation I posted. You CONVIENTLY forget to comment on the FACT that speciation has been observed.
Just for kicks, I'll post it again, so you can't claim to have conviently missed it...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
and again, since it appears you like to ignore any and all evidence...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
There. You have no excuse. We have both now established that fact that speciation (evolution giving rise to new species) has been observed. Evolution is FACT.
So, Bridge. You obviously have trouble reading, so I will give you a brief summary of what I require.
1. I want you to read the list of speciation I have posted. No excuses. Until you do, and comment on it, I am afraid I will believe you a brick wall, since you don't respond to the key arguments.
2. If you are going to ask me about detailed bird-reptile evolution, I will only respond if you give me a detailed description of Julius Caesar's life. Even better, a detailed description of your creator. Don't expect a reply otherwise.
3. I want you to submit evidence to support your 'fact' that experts are still debating about whether archaeopteryx. And also an explaination of, if it is NOT a transitional fossil, why it has reptile features, but bird feathers.
4. If you repeat that Evolution is only a theory, I will only raise my eyebrows and not comment, as it is obvious you have no understanding of the scientific method.
5. If your next post does not provide evidence for you creator, I will not both replying. You keep indicating that there is one, yet with some warped mindset think that only evolution is being debated here. You are wrong. If you claim there is a creator, you have to provide evidence. And if you check this threads title, it says "God exists". In otherwords, your creator is the real thing being debated here. And you keep dodging the principal question.
I repeat, how about some evidence for your Creator? Attacks on evolution won't get you far.
6. If your next post says that Miller's experiment (and those experiments afterwards) did not produce the building blocks of life, I would like an explaination for why amino-acids are not the building blocks of life. After all, it is a FACT amino-acids ARE the building blocks of life.
7. If you say that natural selection is random, you will merely be reconfirming the fact that you don't understand evolution.
8. If you have read this far, I'm impressed....
It is wrong because God would not create beings and love the most the ones who hate him or deny his existence. And athiests do not take God more seriously since they claim they don't believe in him at all. I hope this rewording suits you so you can finally say something real.
Still filled with Love,
Mystee
God created us to love him. That is what he wants most from us. But to get volentary lovers he would also have to deal with those who rebel. Let me illistrate this. I could have a stuffed dog and carry it around with me everywhere I went and say "Oh look my puppt loves me." Asside from being called crazy there would be no real reaction or purpose. But if I have a real dog and he really does love me and he listens to me and loves being around me. This is a bigger deal. Not only does this show that I have done something to deserve his love it also shows that he accepts and apreciates the love I give to him. Then there are those dogs who are bad from the start and no matter how much love they are given they will never return any and rather they bite the hand of the one who feeds him. Well that's how it is with God too. He doesn't want a billion stuffed dogs to follow him like robots. He wants the real voluntary lovers. So chaos was a necessary biproduct for true love to occur.
As for pain and suffering. God knows we suffer, we all do at some point. But this too is necessary. It too is a biproduct of sin, but just like chaos it is temporary. It will pass, for some. For those who return the love of God they will one day be rewarded for the suffering they endured. That is why we say "those who want to be first must be last." Thouse who are the most lowly here on Earth will be glorified in heavin. It's a promise God made to us to give us strength in hard times.
For true love is only found in a heart overflowing with the love of God,
Mystee
God created us to love him. That is what he wants most from us. But to get voluntary lovers he would also have to deal with those who rebel. Let me illistrate this. I could have a stuffed dog and carry it around with me everywhere I went and say "Oh look my puppt loves me." Asside from being called crazy there would be no real reaction or purpose. But if I have a real dog and he really does love me and he listens to me and loves being around me. This is a bigger deal. Not only does this show that I have done something to deserve his love it also shows that he accepts and apreciates the love I give to him. Then there are those dogs who are bad from the start and no matter how much love they are given they will never return any and rather they bite the hand of the one who feeds him. Well that's how it is with God too. He doesn't want a billion stuffed dogs to follow him like robots. He wants the real voluntary lovers. So chaos was a necessary biproduct for true love to occur.
As for pain and suffering. God knows we suffer, we all do at some point. But this to is necessary. It to is a biproduct of sin, but just like chaos it is temporary. It will pass, for some. For those who return the love of God they will one day be rewarded for the suffering they endured. That is why we say "those who want to be first must be last." Those who are the most lowly here on Earth will be glorified in heavin. It's a promise God made to us to give us strength in hard times.
For true love is only found in a heart overflowing with the love of God,
Mystee
I do believe I've sent you over the edge mountainhare, or should I change that to mountain lemming? You've also become a little unreasonabe in your demands.
You didn't have to go to such extreme obfuscation in order to concede a point. I'm quite aware your claim that birds evolved from reptiles can't be substantiated by the facts and therefore your search for the reptile order that evolved into birds would be similar to my search for Julius Caesar's first girlfriend.
As for the controversy surrounding archaeoptryx, here is an evolutionist by the name of Alan Feduccia who has impeccable credentials and is probably the leading authority on the subject.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/ecology/people/feduccia.html
As to the current status of the debate here is a link with a Feb. 2003 date. More is out there if you'll bother to look.
http://www.discover.com/feb_03/breakdialogue.html
The speciation FAQ from talkorigins is old hat. Debated that about two or three years ago on another forum. Look closely at the actual results and you'll see they're using the weak definition of speciation.
It's okay with me that you believe that everything you see around you is the result of some cosmic coincidence. You're not alone. The pity is you don't even realize you're taking some of the alleged "facts" as faith.
But before you post another tirade about me needing to prove the existence of God and Julius Caesar which I'll never even read, a couple of critiques on your style. You cuss too much, know too little and call people a liar without justification. Other than that I'm sure you're a swell kid.
You didn't have to go to such extreme obfuscation in order to concede a point. I'm quite aware your claim that birds evolved from reptiles can't be substantiated by the facts and therefore your search for the reptile order that evolved into birds would be similar to my search for Julius Caesar's first girlfriend.
As for the controversy surrounding archaeoptryx, here is an evolutionist by the name of Alan Feduccia who has impeccable credentials and is probably the leading authority on the subject.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/ecology/people/feduccia.html
As to the current status of the debate here is a link with a Feb. 2003 date. More is out there if you'll bother to look.
http://www.discover.com/feb_03/breakdialogue.html
The speciation FAQ from talkorigins is old hat. Debated that about two or three years ago on another forum. Look closely at the actual results and you'll see they're using the weak definition of speciation.
It's okay with me that you believe that everything you see around you is the result of some cosmic coincidence. You're not alone. The pity is you don't even realize you're taking some of the alleged "facts" as faith.
But before you post another tirade about me needing to prove the existence of God and Julius Caesar which I'll never even read, a couple of critiques on your style. You cuss too much, know too little and call people a liar without justification. Other than that I'm sure you're a swell kid.
Assuming god exists - How do you know what god would or would not do? Do you speak for god? Why would god create anything in the first place? What would be god's motivation to create something like a universe, a animal, or a human?
I think he came to that conclusion using logic. Galen Strawson has written some interesting stuff imo. If you ever get a chance, you should check it out. I also think everyone should invest in a Baloney Detection Kit.
Are you saying all atheists are this way? Rather generalized don't you think?
That is a calculated insult. I won't reply, because it's be kind to the animals week.
Unreasonable? That's nice. You asking me to give you the entire history of how bird/reptiles evolved is like me asking you to give me a complete history of Julius Caesar. I am glad you realize that my request is unreasonable. It was intended to be.
You just can't accept the facts. You already have a pre-conceived truth.
I keep repeating Archaeoptryx, yet you attempt to sweep it under the carpet.
How so, child?
How so, child?
You still have not submitted evidence that there is a debate raging about whether Archaeoptryx is a transitional fossil.
The first website you gave me gives me minor details about Alan.
The second is about how close birds are to dinosaurs. The debate is NOT about whether archaeoptryx is a transitional form. Nice try, Bridge. Taking things out of context (yet again).
It is OK if you believe that a creator poofed everything into existence. But until you get some EVIDENCE, your 'theory' is worth shit.
You make too many calculated insults. You distort and refuse to listen to the evidence. And you think you are right, even though you have no evidence to support your stance.
It is ok if you believe in things without evidence. Just don't try and make out that others are, when they are not. Other than that, I'm sure you're a swell kid.
And let me repeat, you STILL have not submitted evidence to show that their is a divine creator.
What's wrong, Bridge? Don't you have any EVIDENCE? If you did, I think you would have presented it by now, child.
Jenyar,
I understand. My argument is that like you say we don’t know how we originated, so why do you say you do know that a god did it? If presented as an interesting speculation then that would be acceptable but you insist and so do so many others that they ‘know’ a god is involved, but you can’t know. This defies reason and has detrimental affects on society as a whole and is hence dangerous.
Understood, but it is a misuse of the word ‘know’. All you are describing is that you believe in a fantasy. While that might seem emotive and you’d rather not think of yourselves living a fantasy it is nevertheless an objective and accurate description of your actions.
But the difference is massive. One belief at least will be false. But I make no claims as to a particular belief. As you say we don’t know yet, and I’ll be patient until we discover truth.
I suspect you misunderstand me. We have mapped the human genome and we know most of our DNA is junk. My question was that if God designed the living cell and designed humans why did he put so much worthless material in the cell? The question is answered through evolution but it add another nail to the coffin of the idea that God designed us.
Yes I agree, and all that indicates is that there is no such thing as an omniscient god or that there even needs to be one.
I agree but that means that God cannot be omniscient since that requires perfect knowledge of everything past, present and future.
That dishonesty is very unlike you, I am surprised.
I don’t believe I have ever stated that I favor my existence over any other life. My signature indicates my philosophy in such matters. But other than that you are generally correct, but that gives no indication that a god exists or needs to exist. All you have described is reality and the harshness of life.
Sorry, but that sounds like enormous unnecessary emotional clutter. You are loving a fantasy that can never return anything. The only benefits you receive will be from the placebo effect plus the optimism generated by believing something positive. But there is no reality beneath your beliefs; you are simply living in self-delusion. And that may feel truly pleasant, but it is living a lie.
Yes I know. I prefer to live a life based on what is known reality.
Very good question. I hope I can answer it accuratly. Though no one can truly know God's motives, I may have some insight into the topic. This is just my opinions now, you will have to take it up with God if you want to know the answer for sure.
The angels were made already dwelling with God. Some did rebel and were sent directly to Satan. But the angles never have to go through what we do. They never have to deal with sickness or pain or loss. Or doubt because they see God and can not doubt his existence. God created us on the Earth rather than more angles because he ultamatly wanted to reward us. When we get to Heaven we will be rewarded because of the hardships we had to overcome and because we believed even when we didn't see and even when it was hard. The Bible does not talk much about the angels, except to say they are, among other things, the messengers of God. We are different from them and God treats us differently. Though I can't say for sure what God's motives were, he has plans for us that differ from his plans for the angels.
Love,
Mystee
Did you ever think maybe God doesn't want us to have any more evidence than we have? Have you though that maybe God doesn't want the proud who think life is all about physical evedence. Maybe God denies requests for more evedence because he wants to see if we will believe anyway. God has given SO much proof of his existence already. Read the Bible. Why should he grant the request for proof from one who wont even ask him directly. When you ask Bridge for evidence you are essentially saying "Why hasn't God given us more proof?" am I wrong? He has given proof. If you turn to him, even all alone where no one will ever know, and ask HIM for proof that he is real he will give it. Ask every night, even if you doubt, and he will give it. If you search for him he will run to you. No it may not be a pearly white angle appearing in your bed room at night, it may not be the hard physical evedence you want, but God will prove his existence to your heart. It takes so much more faith to believe we came from nothing than to believe a loving God made us in his image.
All Christ's undying Love,
Mystee
Mystee,
The same is said about leprechauns. That it can be imagined adds no weight to whether it is true.
Then give one single piece of evidence if there is so much.
It is biased since we know parts of it were manipulated for political ends. And since we know some of it is untrue then why should we trust any of it? Find something independent.
I’ve asked already many times. Why didn’t he answer?
He didn’t. What now?
The more I search the more I see that he cannot exist.
What does that mean? Your heart is a blood pump. What you mean is that God will appeal to your emotions, and we all know that emotions are the most unreliable method possible for establishing truth.
I may have missed something, who said we came from nothing?
Since you realize some of us don’t believe in Christ then aren’t these signatures somewhat insulting? Don’t they also devalue the real value of love when you dispense them so liberally? If you were sincere about love you'd use a neutral term.
Two nights ago my cousin was mugged by three men. After they had stolen everything on him, they stabbed him three times in the back with a knife - he felt three blows that he knew weren't punches, and his (brand new) jersey was cut above the shoulder and had another knifepoint hole just below his shoulder.
All he had to show for it was a small bruise.