Evidence for God?

[Political Junky]

Atheists offer NOTHING when it comes to how life and the universe came into existence. NOTHING. That's because you've got NOTHING.

So?

At least we're honest enough to say "I don't know"

In contrast, you're not honest. You pretend you know the answer. Moral high ground to the atheists, as usual.

Well, that's just it. Atheists don't say "I don't know" but instead mock us the "sky fairy" crap. Then, they pretend that their belief that the universe created itself is rationale, logical thinking. For the record, I believe we have a creator, but I don't know that as a fact. That's the difference between the atheist and me.

Well, it is weird that you choose your "sky fairy" over science.

 

[K9Buck]

Atheists are morons. Yea, the universe created itself.

PM guys for a GREAT deal on a bridge that I own in San Francisco.

 

[Political Junky]

Atheists are morons. Yea, the universe created itself.

PM guys for a GREAT deal on a bridge that I own in San Francisco.

Prove God.

 

[K9Buck]

Atheists are morons. Yea, the universe created itself.

PM guys for a GREAT deal on a bridge that I own in San Francisco.

Prove God.

Prove you exist. Prove we're not a small child's dream

 

[Political Junky]

^^ Fail

 

[Sunni Man]

How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.

The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.

The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People ***** about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?

You want to find God under the microscope? inside a petri dish?

Well you won't.

You might.. In a lab in a lot of disciplines. See "the God particle" for instance. Or the DNA we share with viruses that make up a lot part of the human genome.. A lot of roads science goes down ends in awe and a little "belief".
Like the Big Bang for instance. Which no one human can actually fathom on any kind of reality experience level.

Well yes, at the end of the day Science and Religion are the two ends of a same cord. And they are bound to meet.

That day we will have no doubts!

It takes far more faith to believe in Evolution and the Big Bang theory, than to believe in God. ....

 

[skye]

How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.

The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.

The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People ***** about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?

You want to find God under the microscope? inside a petri dish?

Well you won't.

You might.. In a lab in a lot of disciplines. See "the God particle" for instance. Or the DNA we share with viruses that make up a lot part of the human genome.. A lot of roads science goes down ends in awe and a little "belief".
Like the Big Bang for instance. Which no one human can actually fathom on any kind of reality experience level.

Well yes, at the end of the day Science and Religion are the two ends of a same cord. And they are bound to meet.

That day we will have no doubts!

It takes far more faith to believe in Evolution and the Big Bang theory, than to believe in God. ....

You think so?



I personally think it takes more faith to believe in GOD.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Prove you exist. Prove we're not a small child's dream

Wish him into the cornfield Billy.

 

[K9Buck]

Prove you exist. Prove we're not a small child's dream

Wish him into the cornfield Billy.

LOL! Billy and the folks patronizing him remind me of Jung-un and his circle.

Did you see the sequel to this?

 

[MarkDuffy]

Well, first of all, archaeology does not address abiogenesis, that is in the realm of chemistry. And the problem is not in finding a route for life to have started, but which, of many possible routes, did life take to get started. And, since life started very early in the history of our planet, it looks as if it is not an unusual event.

You're right, it is chemistry. But that begs the question, why can't you reproduce the phenomenon in a controlled lab environment.... especially, since you conclude it must've been easy?

No one ever said it was easy. It took a billion years. Very difficult to do in the lab, but we have made remarkable progress.

BBC Nature - History of life on Earth

Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells

Chemists claim to have solved riddle of how life began on Earth

You're wrong about the problem not being the finding of the route... that's precisely the problem, you haven't found the route. You have about 127 competing theories of abiogenesis, none have ever been proven. What's the problem? It's supposed to have happened easily in the inconsistent muck of the primordial soup... you have state of the art labs where every aspect of the environment can be controlled at your fingertips.

You really need to get out more and smell the coffee.

Dividing Droplets Could Explain Origin of Life | Quanta Magazine

When we study life in all it's splendor, we find a fascinating collection of symbiotic and interdependent relationships... this can't live without that... and that can't live without something else.

More proof that God didn't do it. The vastness of life is too complex for a God.

Many things are entirely dependent upon things like the moon, tidal currents, ocean convection, seasons. Would they exist without them? They couldn't exist without them!

Yes, there is a moon hypothesis, but that only claims to make life on earth easier. The rest is just physics.

We can reasonably deduce that life began in the ocean but oxygen is essential for life... so how did oxygen become abundant in the ocean? The only way for that to happen is through motion of the ocean and without a moon, there is no motion of the ocean, it's a static pond incapable of supporting life.

This is nonsense. Molecular atmospheric oxygen is not required for life. First life were anerobic heterotrophs. Oxygen atmosphere came later due to autotrophs having evolved from them.

Plant Life: Anaerobes and Heterotrophs

As far as your moving ocean, the ocean moves via corolis effect that is caused by earth's rotation & atmospheric weather patterns.

NOAA's National Ocean Service Education: Currents: Coriolis Effect

So I think the existence of life is much more complicated that simply having a rock in suitable proximity to a sun.

I know of no one who makes this specific claim. When people like me claim the universe is teeming with life, we mean that there are a LOT of stars out there. We also do not mean human level life.

 

[K9Buck]

More proof that God didn't do it.

You apparently don't know what "proof" means.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Here's one of your fuzzies, that you will argue that you meant something else afterwards:

BOSS SAYS: "We can reasonably deduce that life began in the ocean but oxygen is essential for life... so how did oxygen become abundant in the ocean? The only way for that to happen is through motion of the ocean and without a moon, there is no motion of the ocean, it's a static pond incapable of supporting life. "

Oxygen is 33% of the ocean. It's called H2O.

It doesn't require motion of the ocean. It IS the ocean.

Ok, so I know you're going to say, that you meant something different, like you always do. But you keep saying stuff like this, and then backtracking when you're called out on it. And insisting you're the smartest person on the planet.

Well no... Water is not oxygen. It is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen.

Way to go Einstein! And what does photosynthesis do?

Hint ===>>> 6CO2 + 6H2O ------> C6H12O6 + 6O2

The oxygen comes from splitting the water, not the CO2, in case you are confused.

Plants Don’t Convert CO2 into O2

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, have you guys yet succeeded where humans have failed since the dawn of humans.... and found some evidence for God, yet?

 

[K9Buck]

So, have you guys yet succeeded where humans have failed since the dawn of humans.... and found some evidence for God, yet?

There's a shitload of evidence, but atheists don't want to see it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, have you guys yet succeeded where humans have failed since the dawn of humans.... and found some evidence for God, yet?

There's a shitload of evidence, but atheists don't want to see it.

Or maybe atheists have considered it and found it to be bad evidence.

 

[MarkDuffy]

I believe in evolution, but I don't believe that life spontaneously materialized in a primordial soup and then "evolved" into every living thing that's ever existed. There is certainly a lack of archaeological evidence to support that claim.

Well, first of all, archaeology does not address abiogenesis, that is in the realm of chemistry. And the problem is not in finding a route for life to have started, but which, of many possible routes, did life take to get started. And, since life started very early in the history of our planet, it looks as if it is not an unusual event.

Atheists offer NOTHING when it comes to how life and the universe came into existence. NOTHING. That's because you've got NOTHING.

Believers offer NOTHING when it comes to how life and the universe came into existence. NOTHING. That's because you've got NOTHING.

 

[MarkDuffy]

How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.

The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.

The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People ***** about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?

The odd of these proteins magically combining themselves into a cell are prohibitive against your bizarre theory of "evolution"

No one claims this except you believers, dummy.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Given that you don't know how the universe started, why not admit it? It's not like you're fooling anyone. By denying it, you're just reinforcing your fortress there on the moral low ground.

I've never denied that I don't know how the universe started. The fact is, it did start somehow.

Given that fact, we have two basic options.... physical nature created itself or spiritual nature created it.

No matter what you believe, you have to believe something came from nothing. Some believe there is a physical explanation and some believe the explanation is spiritual.

There is only one explanation of creation, ours.

You spirit walkers have no explanation for the creation of God. Worse, you allow a spirit w/o a universe.

 

[MarkDuffy]

How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.

The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.

The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People ***** about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?

You want to find God under the microscope? inside a petri dish?

Well you won't.

You might.. In a lab in a lot of disciplines. See "the God particle" for instance. Or the DNA we share with viruses that make up a lot part of the human genome.. A lot of roads science goes down ends in awe and a little "belief".
Like the Big Bang for instance. Which no one human can actually fathom on any kind of reality experience level.

Well yes, at the end of the day Science and Religion are the two ends of a same cord. And they are bound to meet.

That day we will have no doubts!

It takes far more faith to believe in Evolution and the Big Bang theory, than to believe in God. ....

So, you admit believers have very little faith

LOL

 

[Marion Morrison]

How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.

The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.

The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People ***** about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?

Evidence to the contrary=-?

Somehow I don't think you were there and can provide any eyewitness testimony.

Furthermore you're a man that wants to dress up like a girl, so..wtf?!