People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD

What is it you think I missed? Is there not a DNA code in singled celled life forms?
You missed a lot but this one you did get.

Is DNA random? What does science say about randomness?
You fail to understand that evolution is NOT a random process. Natural selection is the key. If you had an large box of letters and spilled them onto a table the odds that they would match Shakespare's Hamlet are infinitesimally small. However some would match and if you removed every letter that didn't match and spilled them out again some more would match. It wouldn't take very long to get to Hamlet with this selective pressure.

Where are all of those "transitional" bones?
Every bone is a transitional bone, every fossil a transitional fossil.

How difficult is it for an eye to form correctly?
Not difficult at all if you have enough time.

Can it happen by chance?
No and it didn't.

All bullshit alang. Natural selection had nothing to do with the beginning of life on this planet. Adapting is not the same thing as mutating.
One single cell is not, as Darwin believed, simple life form to complex forms. It is complex from the very first living cell. To create a different species from one that already exists, DNA would have to mutate, and continue to make the exact mistake without mutating again for millions of years. DNA attempts to self correct.

No, not every bone is transitional. To the contrary, my femur is the same as my mother's femur, because my DNA knows how to create one. So did my mother's DNA. Neither DNA broke with tradition. There are no 1/2 monkey 1/2 human remains to be found when there should be millions of them.

As for the eye, it is extremely complex form the git go. Even Darwin disagrees with you:
Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary theory, wrote in regards to the difficulties of applying evolution to the eye. “… that the eye … could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

Had Darwin known about DNA we would have never heard of Darwin.
.
To create a different species from one that already exists, DNA would have to mutate, and continue to make the exact mistake without mutating again for millions of years.

that is not correct, DNA is not the determining factor but the physical mechanism to bring about the change - the metaphysical component of the cell, the cell itself determines the procedures progression to dictate the information the DNA uses to make the alternations. the stored metaphysical information may in a final step in certain circumstances create an entirely new species in a single step without an intermediary trail. parent to offspring where the offspring is an entirely a new species that will reproduce from that time foreward.
"parent to offspring where the offspring is an entirely a new species that will reproduce from that time foreward."

That has never happened. Not once. There is more information stored in the DNA and RNA of a cell than would ever be necessary to guide the entire life and development of an organism, and much of it is simply dormant. There is absolutely no need to introduce this magical nonsense.
 
th


That's an insect that 'supposedly' evolved. It is not 'proof' in the manner you are referring. Dragonflies, mosquitoes, and other insects have the same adaptation. Try again. You're being disingenuous with your pathetic attempts at best.

Show the intermediary forms that lead to this adaptation with visual records and direct observation of the millions of years it took to reach this stage.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

"and direct observation of the millions of years it took to reach this stage."

Ha, and there it is. Same shit every time with you guys. What an absurd standard. Should scientists also be kind enough to come over to your house and watch a lump of an isotope for 2.5 million years to make you believe the half-life of the isotope is 2.5 million years? Maybe we should all come over, and spend a few hundred million years replicating the formation of Earth. Would you then believe it has an iron core? Would you then believe planets can coalesce out of gaseous clouds?


th


So your answer is "NO" and that you have no proof that we're anything more than a computer program that someone named God turned on either a nanosecond ago, six thousand years ago,..... or approximately fifteen billion years ago.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

My answer is "no"... to what, exactly? That I have no proof of the universe being deterministic? I'm trying to make sense of the thoughts you are foisting on me as my own, before I respond to this rude gesture.

"anything more than a computer program"

I will assume you refer to the idea that the universe is a deterministic physical system. Science doesn't "prove" this, or attempt to prove this. It is assumed, because it works. Every single time. This basic principle is how scientists understand anything in the physical world.

Now, as it turns out, there is no reason at all to believe the universe is anything but deterministic, and the empirical evidence bears this out. Certainly it is reasonable to expect any physical process we study to be deterministic. You may say, "But God can perform miracles!". Okay, maybe gods can do this. Maybe gods can violate determinism. It would be rather hard to test such an idea; I could never rule it out. Maybe God did miracles! okay... and? You obviously have distaste for a "clockwork god". Wield your miracle hypotheses as you wish, but realize when they are wrong.

Point being, theists need to realize that your insistence on the influence of gods on our reality is just not compatible with science. There is no overlap, and thus no quarrel. Only dogma can quarrel with science, not theism itself. Not the concept of miracles, either. Don't present your dogma as reason for theism. You put the cart before the horse when you do.


View attachment 152768

What action/event caused the Big Bang and set the universe in motion?

I'm going with a miracle until something better comes along...

mracle definition - Bing

MIRACLE:
- a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences:


...How about you?

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

"What action/event caused the Big Bang and set the universe in motion?

I'm going with a miracle until something better comes along..."

Of course you are. This is not new ground you are treading. This is the same thing people have done throughout history, with every gap in our understanding. And if we figure it out, you'll just find a different gap to fill with miracles. And that's fine...it has no affect on science or anything we do. It's just your personal belief.


th


I don't see any scientific answer from you as to what set in the universe in motion.

Don't you know?

I thought the almighty alter of science held all your answers.

Don't you have a 99% consensus to back your absolute faith in science?

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)
 
"and direct observation of the millions of years it took to reach this stage."

Ha, and there it is. Same shit every time with you guys. What an absurd standard. Should scientists also be kind enough to come over to your house and watch a lump of an isotope for 2.5 million years to make you believe the half-life of the isotope is 2.5 million years? Maybe we should all come over, and spend a few hundred million years replicating the formation of Earth. Would you then believe it has an iron core? Would you then believe planets can coalesce out of gaseous clouds?

th


So your answer is "NO" and that you have no proof that we're anything more than a computer program that someone named God turned on either a nanosecond ago, six thousand years ago,..... or approximately fifteen billion years ago.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

My answer is "no"... to what, exactly? That I have no proof of the universe being deterministic? I'm trying to make sense of the thoughts you are foisting on me as my own, before I respond to this rude gesture.

"anything more than a computer program"

I will assume you refer to the idea that the universe is a deterministic physical system. Science doesn't "prove" this, or attempt to prove this. It is assumed, because it works. Every single time. This basic principle is how scientists understand anything in the physical world.

Now, as it turns out, there is no reason at all to believe the universe is anything but deterministic, and the empirical evidence bears this out. Certainly it is reasonable to expect any physical process we study to be deterministic. You may say, "But God can perform miracles!". Okay, maybe gods can do this. Maybe gods can violate determinism. It would be rather hard to test such an idea; I could never rule it out. Maybe God did miracles! okay... and? You obviously have distaste for a "clockwork god". Wield your miracle hypotheses as you wish, but realize when they are wrong.

Point being, theists need to realize that your insistence on the influence of gods on our reality is just not compatible with science. There is no overlap, and thus no quarrel. Only dogma can quarrel with science, not theism itself. Not the concept of miracles, either. Don't present your dogma as reason for theism. You put the cart before the horse when you do.


View attachment 152768

What action/event caused the Big Bang and set the universe in motion?

I'm going with a miracle until something better comes along...

mracle definition - Bing

MIRACLE:
- a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences:


...How about you?

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

"What action/event caused the Big Bang and set the universe in motion?

I'm going with a miracle until something better comes along..."

Of course you are. This is not new ground you are treading. This is the same thing people have done throughout history, with every gap in our understanding. And if we figure it out, you'll just find a different gap to fill with miracles. And that's fine...it has no affect on science or anything we do. It's just your personal belief.


th


I don't see any scientific answer from you as to what set in the universe in motion.

Don't you know?

I thought the almighty alter of science held all your answers.

Don't you have a 99% consensus to back your absolute faith in science?

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

Of course I don't know. What a stupid thing to say... are you drunk? No scientist claims to know, either. Scientists are proud of saying "I don't know", because it usually delineates what they DO know and HAVE discovered. Unlike you religious charlatans, who think they have answers, but actually have none at all.

Try to remember.... there is only one of us claiming to know. That would be you. And, being the religious charlatan you are, your "knowing" is actually "knowing nothing at all", as you merely substitute 'It's magic!" for 'I don't know".
 
People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God. The odds of such developing out of thin space is nearly ZERO.

Sure, physics and chemistry takes some faith in the start but it most certainly explains everything since. Everything when using evidenced based science works together very well.

The first stars came around 12 or billion years ago to form the first galaxies.
Our star formed within our galaxy a little earlier then the earth as gravity had to develop the planets like earth. So earth about 4.3 billion years ago.
The first single celled life
The first muilti celled life
Land life
on up to humans is everything at odds with the 2,000 year old book. The book makes no sense and it is just a crock of shit.

That is reality.

Life formed in the oceans
The fossil record shows that man is only a few million years old as a "family" group and a few hundred thousand years old as a single species.
The sun came first in the case of our solar system
Then the planets
Then life
Then more advanced life in the oceans
Then life on land
Then after a few hundred million years humans come into the picture.

This is once again reality.

One is a fool if they attempt to put belief ahead of the facts and evidence.

Time to come to the conclusion that there probably isn't a god and you shouldn't force religion on other people...Those other people are more likely to be RIGHT.


And what if they don't, will you put them in concentration camps for "wrong think?"

The obsession you Stalinists have with persecuting the religious is startling.
 
People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God. The odds of such developing out of thin space is nearly ZERO.

Sure, physics and chemistry takes some faith in the start but it most certainly explains everything since. Everything when using evidenced based science works together very well.

The first stars came around 12 or billion years ago to form the first galaxies.
Our star formed within our galaxy a little earlier then the earth as gravity had to develop the planets like earth. So earth about 4.3 billion years ago.
The first single celled life
The first muilti celled life
Land life
on up to humans is everything at odds with the 2,000 year old book. The book makes no sense and it is just a crock of shit.

That is reality.

Life formed in the oceans
The fossil record shows that man is only a few million years old as a "family" group and a few hundred thousand years old as a single species.
The sun came first in the case of our solar system
Then the planets
Then life
Then more advanced life in the oceans
Then life on land
Then after a few hundred million years humans come into the picture.

This is once again reality.

One is a fool if they attempt to put belief ahead of the facts and evidence.

Time to come to the conclusion that there probably isn't a god and you shouldn't force religion on other people...Those other people are more likely to be RIGHT.


And what if they don't, will you put them in concentration camps for "wrong think?"

The obsession you Stalinists have with persecuting the religious is startling.
Hah...you attributed persecution to him out of nowhere, then used your madeup bullshit as evidence of a equally non-existent larger trend. Very "Rushy" of you. No really, some people have to practice little cons and tricks like those. You seem to be a natural.
 
People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God. The odds of such developing out of thin space is nearly ZERO.

Sure, physics and chemistry takes some faith in the start but it most certainly explains everything since. Everything when using evidenced based science works together very well.

The first stars came around 12 or billion years ago to form the first galaxies.
Our star formed within our galaxy a little earlier then the earth as gravity had to develop the planets like earth. So earth about 4.3 billion years ago.
The first single celled life
The first muilti celled life
Land life
on up to humans is everything at odds with the 2,000 year old book. The book makes no sense and it is just a crock of shit.

That is reality.

Life formed in the oceans
The fossil record shows that man is only a few million years old as a "family" group and a few hundred thousand years old as a single species.
The sun came first in the case of our solar system
Then the planets
Then life
Then more advanced life in the oceans
Then life on land
Then after a few hundred million years humans come into the picture.

This is once again reality.

One is a fool if they attempt to put belief ahead of the facts and evidence.

Time to come to the conclusion that there probably isn't a god and you shouldn't force religion on other people...Those other people are more likely to be RIGHT.


And what if they don't, will you put them in concentration camps for "wrong think?"

The obsession you Stalinists have with persecuting the religious is startling.
Hah...you attributed persecution to him out of nowhere, then used your madeup bullshit as evidence of a equally non-existent larger trend. Very "Rushy" of you. No really, some people have to practice little cons and tricks like those. You seem to be a natural.


Drooling Matty is well known,

What banned Stalinist retard were you?
 
People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God. The odds of such developing out of thin space is nearly ZERO.

Sure, physics and chemistry takes some faith in the start but it most certainly explains everything since. Everything when using evidenced based science works together very well.

The first stars came around 12 or billion years ago to form the first galaxies.
Our star formed within our galaxy a little earlier then the earth as gravity had to develop the planets like earth. So earth about 4.3 billion years ago.
The first single celled life
The first muilti celled life
Land life
on up to humans is everything at odds with the 2,000 year old book. The book makes no sense and it is just a crock of shit.

That is reality.

Life formed in the oceans
The fossil record shows that man is only a few million years old as a "family" group and a few hundred thousand years old as a single species.
The sun came first in the case of our solar system
Then the planets
Then life
Then more advanced life in the oceans
Then life on land
Then after a few hundred million years humans come into the picture.

This is once again reality.

One is a fool if they attempt to put belief ahead of the facts and evidence.

Time to come to the conclusion that there probably isn't a god and you shouldn't force religion on other people...Those other people are more likely to be RIGHT.


And what if they don't, will you put them in concentration camps for "wrong think?"

The obsession you Stalinists have with persecuting the religious is startling.
Hah...you attributed persecution to him out of nowhere, then used your madeup bullshit as evidence of a equally non-existent larger trend. Very "Rushy" of you. No really, some people have to practice little cons and tricks like those. You seem to be a natural.


Drooling Matty is well known,

What banned Stalinist retard were you?
Huh? Stalinist? Wha? I gotta say, i never knew that I should be so scared of Stalinists and commies until I came the this forum. So this place is the actual "basket", eh? :D
 
th


So your answer is "NO" and that you have no proof that we're anything more than a computer program that someone named God turned on either a nanosecond ago, six thousand years ago,..... or approximately fifteen billion years ago.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

My answer is "no"... to what, exactly? That I have no proof of the universe being deterministic? I'm trying to make sense of the thoughts you are foisting on me as my own, before I respond to this rude gesture.

"anything more than a computer program"

I will assume you refer to the idea that the universe is a deterministic physical system. Science doesn't "prove" this, or attempt to prove this. It is assumed, because it works. Every single time. This basic principle is how scientists understand anything in the physical world.

Now, as it turns out, there is no reason at all to believe the universe is anything but deterministic, and the empirical evidence bears this out. Certainly it is reasonable to expect any physical process we study to be deterministic. You may say, "But God can perform miracles!". Okay, maybe gods can do this. Maybe gods can violate determinism. It would be rather hard to test such an idea; I could never rule it out. Maybe God did miracles! okay... and? You obviously have distaste for a "clockwork god". Wield your miracle hypotheses as you wish, but realize when they are wrong.

Point being, theists need to realize that your insistence on the influence of gods on our reality is just not compatible with science. There is no overlap, and thus no quarrel. Only dogma can quarrel with science, not theism itself. Not the concept of miracles, either. Don't present your dogma as reason for theism. You put the cart before the horse when you do.


View attachment 152768

What action/event caused the Big Bang and set the universe in motion?

I'm going with a miracle until something better comes along...

mracle definition - Bing

MIRACLE:
- a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences:


...How about you?

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

"What action/event caused the Big Bang and set the universe in motion?

I'm going with a miracle until something better comes along..."

Of course you are. This is not new ground you are treading. This is the same thing people have done throughout history, with every gap in our understanding. And if we figure it out, you'll just find a different gap to fill with miracles. And that's fine...it has no affect on science or anything we do. It's just your personal belief.


th


I don't see any scientific answer from you as to what set in the universe in motion.

Don't you know?

I thought the almighty alter of science held all your answers.

Don't you have a 99% consensus to back your absolute faith in science?

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

Of course I don't know. What a stupid thing to say... are you drunk? No scientist claims to know, either. Scientists are proud of saying "I don't know", because it usually delineates what they DO know and HAVE discovered. Unlike you religious charlatans, who think they have answers, but actually have none at all.

Try to remember.... there is only one of us claiming to know. That would be you. And, being the religious charlatan you are, your "knowing" is actually "knowing nothing at all", as you merely substitute 'It's magic!" for 'I don't know".


th


Where have I claimed to be allied to some religion or to know what happened prior to the big bang?

Your gish gallop appears to be bending back in upon itself as you pathetically attempt to place me into a pigeon hole.

Will your pathetic attempts reach critical mass and implode in upon you as you continue on your current trajectory?

Only time will tell.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)
 
My answer is "no"... to what, exactly? That I have no proof of the universe being deterministic? I'm trying to make sense of the thoughts you are foisting on me as my own, before I respond to this rude gesture.

"anything more than a computer program"

I will assume you refer to the idea that the universe is a deterministic physical system. Science doesn't "prove" this, or attempt to prove this. It is assumed, because it works. Every single time. This basic principle is how scientists understand anything in the physical world.

Now, as it turns out, there is no reason at all to believe the universe is anything but deterministic, and the empirical evidence bears this out. Certainly it is reasonable to expect any physical process we study to be deterministic. You may say, "But God can perform miracles!". Okay, maybe gods can do this. Maybe gods can violate determinism. It would be rather hard to test such an idea; I could never rule it out. Maybe God did miracles! okay... and? You obviously have distaste for a "clockwork god". Wield your miracle hypotheses as you wish, but realize when they are wrong.

Point being, theists need to realize that your insistence on the influence of gods on our reality is just not compatible with science. There is no overlap, and thus no quarrel. Only dogma can quarrel with science, not theism itself. Not the concept of miracles, either. Don't present your dogma as reason for theism. You put the cart before the horse when you do.

View attachment 152768

What action/event caused the Big Bang and set the universe in motion?

I'm going with a miracle until something better comes along...

mracle definition - Bing

MIRACLE:
- a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences:


...How about you?

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

"What action/event caused the Big Bang and set the universe in motion?

I'm going with a miracle until something better comes along..."

Of course you are. This is not new ground you are treading. This is the same thing people have done throughout history, with every gap in our understanding. And if we figure it out, you'll just find a different gap to fill with miracles. And that's fine...it has no affect on science or anything we do. It's just your personal belief.


th


I don't see any scientific answer from you as to what set in the universe in motion.

Don't you know?

I thought the almighty alter of science held all your answers.

Don't you have a 99% consensus to back your absolute faith in science?

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

Of course I don't know. What a stupid thing to say... are you drunk? No scientist claims to know, either. Scientists are proud of saying "I don't know", because it usually delineates what they DO know and HAVE discovered. Unlike you religious charlatans, who think they have answers, but actually have none at all.

Try to remember.... there is only one of us claiming to know. That would be you. And, being the religious charlatan you are, your "knowing" is actually "knowing nothing at all", as you merely substitute 'It's magic!" for 'I don't know".


th


Where have I claimed to be allied to some religion or to know what happened prior to the big bang?

Your gish gallop appears to be bending back in upon itself as you pathetically attempt to place me into a pigeon hole.

Will your pathetic attempts reach critical mass and implode in upon you as you continue on your current trajectory?

Only time will tell.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

Wait, let me get this straight...now you're put off (it's always something with you) because I dared to treat you the exact way you treated me? That's kind of juvenile, no?

Yes, I think you pretend to know how it happened. And I DO mean, "pretend", as your answer is really a big ol' nothing burger that explains nothing at all: "god did it".
 
View attachment 152768

What action/event caused the Big Bang and set the universe in motion?

I'm going with a miracle until something better comes along...

mracle definition - Bing

MIRACLE:
- a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences:


...How about you?

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

"What action/event caused the Big Bang and set the universe in motion?

I'm going with a miracle until something better comes along..."

Of course you are. This is not new ground you are treading. This is the same thing people have done throughout history, with every gap in our understanding. And if we figure it out, you'll just find a different gap to fill with miracles. And that's fine...it has no affect on science or anything we do. It's just your personal belief.


th


I don't see any scientific answer from you as to what set in the universe in motion.

Don't you know?

I thought the almighty alter of science held all your answers.

Don't you have a 99% consensus to back your absolute faith in science?

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

Of course I don't know. What a stupid thing to say... are you drunk? No scientist claims to know, either. Scientists are proud of saying "I don't know", because it usually delineates what they DO know and HAVE discovered. Unlike you religious charlatans, who think they have answers, but actually have none at all.

Try to remember.... there is only one of us claiming to know. That would be you. And, being the religious charlatan you are, your "knowing" is actually "knowing nothing at all", as you merely substitute 'It's magic!" for 'I don't know".


th


Where have I claimed to be allied to some religion or to know what happened prior to the big bang?

Your gish gallop appears to be bending back in upon itself as you pathetically attempt to place me into a pigeon hole.

Will your pathetic attempts reach critical mass and implode in upon you as you continue on your current trajectory?

Only time will tell.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

Wait, let me get this straight...now you're put off (it's always something with you) because I dared to treat you the exact way you treated me? That's kind of juvenile, no?

Yes, I think you pretend to know how it happened. And I DO mean, "pretend", as your answer is really a big ol' nothing burger that explains nothing at all: "god did it".


upload_2017-10-5_22-19-39.jpeg


I know more about what happened than you obviously since you couldn't even recognize Einstein's field equation.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)
 
What is it you think I missed? Is there not a DNA code in singled celled life forms?
You missed a lot but this one you did get.

Is DNA random? What does science say about randomness?
You fail to understand that evolution is NOT a random process. Natural selection is the key. If you had an large box of letters and spilled them onto a table the odds that they would match Shakespare's Hamlet are infinitesimally small. However some would match and if you removed every letter that didn't match and spilled them out again some more would match. It wouldn't take very long to get to Hamlet with this selective pressure.

Where are all of those "transitional" bones?
Every bone is a transitional bone, every fossil a transitional fossil.

How difficult is it for an eye to form correctly?
Not difficult at all if you have enough time.

Can it happen by chance?
No and it didn't.

All bullshit alang. Natural selection had nothing to do with the beginning of life on this planet. Adapting is not the same thing as mutating.
One single cell is not, as Darwin believed, simple life form to complex forms. It is complex from the very first living cell. To create a different species from one that already exists, DNA would have to mutate, and continue to make the exact mistake without mutating again for millions of years. DNA attempts to self correct.

No, not every bone is transitional. To the contrary, my femur is the same as my mother's femur, because my DNA knows how to create one. So did my mother's DNA. Neither DNA broke with tradition. There are no 1/2 monkey 1/2 human remains to be found when there should be millions of them.

As for the eye, it is extremely complex form the git go. Even Darwin disagrees with you:
Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary theory, wrote in regards to the difficulties of applying evolution to the eye. “… that the eye … could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

Had Darwin known about DNA we would have never heard of Darwin.
.
To create a different species from one that already exists, DNA would have to mutate, and continue to make the exact mistake without mutating again for millions of years.

that is not correct, DNA is not the determining factor but the physical mechanism to bring about the change - the metaphysical component of the cell, the cell itself determines the procedures progression to dictate the information the DNA uses to make the alternations. the stored metaphysical information may in a final step in certain circumstances create an entirely new species in a single step without an intermediary trail. parent to offspring where the offspring is an entirely a new species that will reproduce from that time foreward.
"parent to offspring where the offspring is an entirely a new species that will reproduce from that time foreward."

That has never happened. Not once. There is more information stored in the DNA and RNA of a cell than would ever be necessary to guide the entire life and development of an organism, and much of it is simply dormant. There is absolutely no need to introduce this magical nonsense.
.
That has never happened. Not once.

particularly during the period of early development where multiple life forms evolved more readily without transitional stages to produce the wide variety of species that evolved. it is the metaphysical that makes it possible, the cicada represents the metaphysical component for all evolutionary change.
 
"What action/event caused the Big Bang and set the universe in motion?

I'm going with a miracle until something better comes along..."

Of course you are. This is not new ground you are treading. This is the same thing people have done throughout history, with every gap in our understanding. And if we figure it out, you'll just find a different gap to fill with miracles. And that's fine...it has no affect on science or anything we do. It's just your personal belief.

th


I don't see any scientific answer from you as to what set in the universe in motion.

Don't you know?

I thought the almighty alter of science held all your answers.

Don't you have a 99% consensus to back your absolute faith in science?

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

Of course I don't know. What a stupid thing to say... are you drunk? No scientist claims to know, either. Scientists are proud of saying "I don't know", because it usually delineates what they DO know and HAVE discovered. Unlike you religious charlatans, who think they have answers, but actually have none at all.

Try to remember.... there is only one of us claiming to know. That would be you. And, being the religious charlatan you are, your "knowing" is actually "knowing nothing at all", as you merely substitute 'It's magic!" for 'I don't know".


th


Where have I claimed to be allied to some religion or to know what happened prior to the big bang?

Your gish gallop appears to be bending back in upon itself as you pathetically attempt to place me into a pigeon hole.

Will your pathetic attempts reach critical mass and implode in upon you as you continue on your current trajectory?

Only time will tell.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

Wait, let me get this straight...now you're put off (it's always something with you) because I dared to treat you the exact way you treated me? That's kind of juvenile, no?

Yes, I think you pretend to know how it happened. And I DO mean, "pretend", as your answer is really a big ol' nothing burger that explains nothing at all: "god did it".


View attachment 152920

I know more about what happened than you obviously since you couldn't even recognize Einstein's field equation.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

Einstein had several field equations. Didn't know that, did ya? Nah, you didn't.

And I did not say I didn't recognize it. I asked you to "explain it like I'm 5". Which, of course, you made no attempt to do. I knew you wouldn't and couldn't, which is why I asked it.

I also asked you to relate it to your assertion that it was "proof of god". You also did not do this.

And now you mock my alleged ignorance of the thing you can't explain to me, and the thing you cannot relate to your own points, as promised by your own, haughty words.

Dude, you are a fraud. Take off, hoser.
 
What is it you think I missed? Is there not a DNA code in singled celled life forms?
You missed a lot but this one you did get.

Is DNA random? What does science say about randomness?
You fail to understand that evolution is NOT a random process. Natural selection is the key. If you had an large box of letters and spilled them onto a table the odds that they would match Shakespare's Hamlet are infinitesimally small. However some would match and if you removed every letter that didn't match and spilled them out again some more would match. It wouldn't take very long to get to Hamlet with this selective pressure.

Where are all of those "transitional" bones?
Every bone is a transitional bone, every fossil a transitional fossil.

How difficult is it for an eye to form correctly?
Not difficult at all if you have enough time.

Can it happen by chance?
No and it didn't.

All bullshit alang. Natural selection had nothing to do with the beginning of life on this planet. Adapting is not the same thing as mutating.
One single cell is not, as Darwin believed, simple life form to complex forms. It is complex from the very first living cell. To create a different species from one that already exists, DNA would have to mutate, and continue to make the exact mistake without mutating again for millions of years. DNA attempts to self correct.

No, not every bone is transitional. To the contrary, my femur is the same as my mother's femur, because my DNA knows how to create one. So did my mother's DNA. Neither DNA broke with tradition. There are no 1/2 monkey 1/2 human remains to be found when there should be millions of them.

As for the eye, it is extremely complex form the git go. Even Darwin disagrees with you:
Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary theory, wrote in regards to the difficulties of applying evolution to the eye. “… that the eye … could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

Had Darwin known about DNA we would have never heard of Darwin.
.
To create a different species from one that already exists, DNA would have to mutate, and continue to make the exact mistake without mutating again for millions of years.

that is not correct, DNA is not the determining factor but the physical mechanism to bring about the change - the metaphysical component of the cell, the cell itself determines the procedures progression to dictate the information the DNA uses to make the alternations. the stored metaphysical information may in a final step in certain circumstances create an entirely new species in a single step without an intermediary trail. parent to offspring where the offspring is an entirely a new species that will reproduce from that time foreward.
"parent to offspring where the offspring is an entirely a new species that will reproduce from that time foreward."

That has never happened. Not once. There is more information stored in the DNA and RNA of a cell than would ever be necessary to guide the entire life and development of an organism, and much of it is simply dormant. There is absolutely no need to introduce this magical nonsense.
.
That has never happened. Not once.

particularly during the period of early development where multiple life forms evolved more readily without transitional stages to produce the wide variety of species that evolved. it is the metaphysical that makes it possible, the cicada represents the metaphysical component for all evolutionary change.
"particularly during the period of early development where multiple life forms evolved more readily without transitional stages to produce the wide variety of species that evolved."

Without transitional stages? Sorry, but you just made that up. Bullshit alert.
 
th


I don't see any scientific answer from you as to what set in the universe in motion.

Don't you know?

I thought the almighty alter of science held all your answers.

Don't you have a 99% consensus to back your absolute faith in science?

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

Of course I don't know. What a stupid thing to say... are you drunk? No scientist claims to know, either. Scientists are proud of saying "I don't know", because it usually delineates what they DO know and HAVE discovered. Unlike you religious charlatans, who think they have answers, but actually have none at all.

Try to remember.... there is only one of us claiming to know. That would be you. And, being the religious charlatan you are, your "knowing" is actually "knowing nothing at all", as you merely substitute 'It's magic!" for 'I don't know".


th


Where have I claimed to be allied to some religion or to know what happened prior to the big bang?

Your gish gallop appears to be bending back in upon itself as you pathetically attempt to place me into a pigeon hole.

Will your pathetic attempts reach critical mass and implode in upon you as you continue on your current trajectory?

Only time will tell.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

Wait, let me get this straight...now you're put off (it's always something with you) because I dared to treat you the exact way you treated me? That's kind of juvenile, no?

Yes, I think you pretend to know how it happened. And I DO mean, "pretend", as your answer is really a big ol' nothing burger that explains nothing at all: "god did it".


View attachment 152920

I know more about what happened than you obviously since you couldn't even recognize Einstein's field equation.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

Einstein had several field equations. Didn't know that, did ya? Nah, you didn't.

And I did not say I didn't recognize it. I asked you to "explain it like I'm 5". Which, of course, you made no attempt to do. I knew you wouldn't and couldn't, which is why I asked it.

I also asked you to relate it to your assertion that it was "proof of god". You also did not do this.

And now you mock my alleged ignorance of the thing you can't explain to me, and the thing you cannot relate to your own points, as promised by your own, haughty words.

Dude, you are a fraud. Take off, hoser.


upload_2017-10-5_22-52-3.jpeg


I find it more likely that you're a fraud attempting to backtrack with your gish gallop like any good progressive. You come on here preaching your faith in science is the answer and obviously know little to no science at all considering the responses you're provided. While in turn criticizing people who have their own belief systems like the hypocritical fraud you truly are.

I've shown you my uncontroversial proof that God exists while as of yet I've seen no such attempt on your part to disprove my argument. Further proof that you are no more than a fraud lacking any true argument that can dissuade me my beliefs. All you have are your silly progressive tactics that do not apply to the situation at hand.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)
 
Of course I don't know. What a stupid thing to say... are you drunk? No scientist claims to know, either. Scientists are proud of saying "I don't know", because it usually delineates what they DO know and HAVE discovered. Unlike you religious charlatans, who think they have answers, but actually have none at all.

Try to remember.... there is only one of us claiming to know. That would be you. And, being the religious charlatan you are, your "knowing" is actually "knowing nothing at all", as you merely substitute 'It's magic!" for 'I don't know".

th


Where have I claimed to be allied to some religion or to know what happened prior to the big bang?

Your gish gallop appears to be bending back in upon itself as you pathetically attempt to place me into a pigeon hole.

Will your pathetic attempts reach critical mass and implode in upon you as you continue on your current trajectory?

Only time will tell.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

Wait, let me get this straight...now you're put off (it's always something with you) because I dared to treat you the exact way you treated me? That's kind of juvenile, no?

Yes, I think you pretend to know how it happened. And I DO mean, "pretend", as your answer is really a big ol' nothing burger that explains nothing at all: "god did it".


View attachment 152920

I know more about what happened than you obviously since you couldn't even recognize Einstein's field equation.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

Einstein had several field equations. Didn't know that, did ya? Nah, you didn't.

And I did not say I didn't recognize it. I asked you to "explain it like I'm 5". Which, of course, you made no attempt to do. I knew you wouldn't and couldn't, which is why I asked it.

I also asked you to relate it to your assertion that it was "proof of god". You also did not do this.

And now you mock my alleged ignorance of the thing you can't explain to me, and the thing you cannot relate to your own points, as promised by your own, haughty words.

Dude, you are a fraud. Take off, hoser.


View attachment 152925

I find it more likely that you're a fraud attempting to backtrack with your gish gallop like any good progressive. You come on here preaching your faith in science is the answer and obviously know little to no science at all considering the responses you're provided. While in turn criticizing people who have their own belief systems like the hypocritical fraud you truly are.

I've shown you my uncontroversial proof that God exists while as of yet I've seen no such attempt on your part to disprove my argument. Further proof that you are no more than a fraud lacking any true argument that can dissuade me my beliefs. All you have are your silly progressive tactics that do not apply to the situation at hand.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)

"I find it more likely that you're a fraud attempting to backtrack with your gish gallop like any good progressive. "

See what I mean? "Backtrack with your Gish Gallop".... that makes nonsense whatsoever. Snake oil.

And what you just did there, in your little con, was to conflate your dogma with the simple assertion of theism. Proving god exists does not prove the body of your claims. You were talking dogma, not theism. Theism is about the existence of a god or gods, not direct claims about a god's actions or the will of gods. The latter is the dogma of religion.

You were not arguing just the existence of God. Now you think you are. Let us know how your internal struggle plays out. God or "God+". Get your shit together.
 
It takes far more "faith" to believe in evolution, than to believe in religion. ..... :cool:
Evolution is a Fact

God is a theory

Not necessarily incompatible as the combatants make it out to be. In the years since Darwin, science has realized that "evolution" didn't muddle along at a snail's pace all the time. With all adaptations being based on survival. If that were true -- everything on the planet would have BIG TEETH and the ability to kill it's competition.

NOW we know that DNA is the key. And that expression of genes or the sequence of CATG is what moves evolution along. And we also know that is affected by cosmic rays, enviro stress, chemical exposure and rapid changes in climate. ALL of those things can be looked at by State Farm or Farmers as legal "acts of God". And during these periods, evolution moves quite quickly. Just as it does in the lab when you irradiate a jar of fruit flies.

It's NOT the Darwinian view anymore. It's a LOT more nuanced. And it allows for accelerated evolution where nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.
 
It takes far more "faith" to believe in evolution, than to believe in religion. ..... :cool:
Evolution is a Fact

God is a theory

Not necessarily incompatible as the combatants make it out to be. In the years since Darwin, science has realized that "evolution" didn't muddle along at a snail's pace all the time. With all adaptations being based on survival. If that were true -- everything on the planet would have BIG TEETH and the ability to kill it's competition.

NOW we know that DNA is the key. And that expression of genes or the sequence of CATG is what moves evolution along. And we also know that is affected by cosmic rays, enviro stress, chemical exposure and rapid changes in climate. ALL of those things can be looked at by State Farm or Farmers as legal "acts of God". And during these periods, evolution moves quite quickly. Just as it does in the lab when you irradiate a jar of fruit flies.

It's NOT the Darwinian view anymore. It's a LOT more nuanced. And it allows for accelerated evolution where nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.
"Not necessarily incompatible"

Of course not! Agreed wholeheartedly. One can point at anything, and say, "God did that!" Okay, fine.
 
It takes far more "faith" to believe in evolution, than to believe in religion. ..... :cool:
Evolution is a Fact

God is a theory

Not necessarily incompatible as the combatants make it out to be. In the years since Darwin, science has realized that "evolution" didn't muddle along at a snail's pace all the time. With all adaptations being based on survival. If that were true -- everything on the planet would have BIG TEETH and the ability to kill it's competition.

NOW we know that DNA is the key. And that expression of genes or the sequence of CATG is what moves evolution along. And we also know that is affected by cosmic rays, enviro stress, chemical exposure and rapid changes in climate. ALL of those things can be looked at by State Farm or Farmers as legal "acts of God". And during these periods, evolution moves quite quickly. Just as it does in the lab when you irradiate a jar of fruit flies.

It's NOT the Darwinian view anymore. It's a LOT more nuanced. And it allows for accelerated evolution where nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.
"Not necessarily incompatible"

Of course not! Agreed wholeheartedly. One can point at anything, and say, "God did that!" Okay, fine.

If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise), which is documented several times in the fossil record -- it kinda, sorta, almost starts looking like a cosmic ray storm or violent event is indeed an "act of God". That's what the insurance companies call it --- RIGHT?

Point is, the tree of life didn't "plod along" at a constant rate of growth and diversity.

Besides, if you look at the story of Creation in Genesis, it's REALLY NOT that far off from the researchsy, sciency version of events. How did they get that far before science began?
 
Spent my life in science disciplines. And spiritual belief has NEVER collided with my logic and reason. Folks like the OP who WORSHIP science -- but never have practiced it --- wouldn't know this. IN FACT -- the DISCIPLINE of religious observation IMO is HELPFUL to separating the two worlds. Even tho I no longer practice a religion, I have HUGE respect for those that do. And they are capable of the same sane, logical processes as a person who knows nothing about religion or detests it.

In fact, several of my mentors were VERY observant in their religions. This is a "fake scuffle"...

Always has and will be. No matter how many threads the Gawd haters open about it..
 
It takes far more "faith" to believe in evolution, than to believe in religion. ..... :cool:
Evolution is a Fact

God is a theory

Not necessarily incompatible as the combatants make it out to be. In the years since Darwin, science has realized that "evolution" didn't muddle along at a snail's pace all the time. With all adaptations being based on survival. If that were true -- everything on the planet would have BIG TEETH and the ability to kill it's competition.

NOW we know that DNA is the key. And that expression of genes or the sequence of CATG is what moves evolution along. And we also know that is affected by cosmic rays, enviro stress, chemical exposure and rapid changes in climate. ALL of those things can be looked at by State Farm or Farmers as legal "acts of God". And during these periods, evolution moves quite quickly. Just as it does in the lab when you irradiate a jar of fruit flies.

It's NOT the Darwinian view anymore. It's a LOT more nuanced. And it allows for accelerated evolution where nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.
"Not necessarily incompatible"

Of course not! Agreed wholeheartedly. One can point at anything, and say, "God did that!" Okay, fine.

If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise), which is documented several times in the fossil record -- it kinda, sorta, almost starts looking like a cosmic ray storm or violent event is indeed an "act of God". That's what the insurance companies call it --- RIGHT?

Point is, the tree of life didn't "plod along" at a constant rate of growth and diversity.

Besides, if you look at the story of Creation in Genesis, it's REALLY NOT that far off from the researchsy, sciency version of events. How did they get that far before science began?
"If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise)"

Nonsensical statement. "Evolutionary wise" can mean many things, depending on one's view of graduation and punctuation, and the overlap. You are selling snake oil, friend. You picked the wrong mark this time. And it's misleading, in that even those pushing punctuated evolution admit gradualism.

No, it does not "almost" look like an "act of God". Bullshit. That's you trying to cram magical nonsense in the gaps of our understanding. Same bullshit for 1000s of years. Nor do the examples of phyletic gradualism rule out an act of God. You are simply taking an overlay of magical bullshit and laying it on top of a scientific theory.


Yes, the story of Genesis, as it relates to human origin, is far off; as in, as far off as it gets. No, our genetic "Adan and Eve" did not meet. We know this. It is clearly 100% wrong .
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top