Ever Notice this about all religion ???

Just visited your signature link.
http://www.gedubrak.com/2008/10/18/a-comment-to-atheist-people/
You state:
Do they still proud with their small brain and small logic? They can't even find the cure for common flue. (sic)

How is that even relevant unless you have found the cure?

That's like me saying religious people are so silly because they haven't worked out how to fly.

It does seem most diehard "religious" people are 10 cent short of a quid.

 

Our environment creates life. It just happens... in a sense humans and life is special... in another sense its really not... its just part of a natural cycle. Now, I am not saying I believe this, but the one and only possible way a God could exist is if our entire universe is inside his peatry dish and we are simply an experiment... which means that he is not listening to our thoughts, prayers, he does not have a heaven or hell, he is simply a scientist just as our scientists do similar things with ant farms and the like.

More likely, it just happened... we know it did.. we are living proof... so why argue it.

 

Don't bother, as you probably realized:

 

Anyone else see the irony of someone criticising science for not getting able to cure a virus which they can't even spell the name of. it's only three letters, at least learn which ones they are and which order to put them in if you are going to criticise science for not being able to cure it, there's a good lad.

The reason flu is hard to cure is because it's a virus, it mutates. Yeah, it evolves. Science can give vaccinations on a year by year basis when they have identified the strain of flu which will be prominent that year. As for vaccinating against all possible strains, not possible at present.

 

LMAO, this may be one of the funniest things I have ever read in my life. Both his arguement for God and your response to it. haha. It does make me want to ask a question however...

Is your God really that great if he created a world and filled it with such demons as cancer, aids, and the old common cold? And if he didn't create them... why hasn't he cured them? Surely he can... and you would think he would want to... when computers get a virus we always want to cure them...

And please, I beg you, please do not resort the debate ending "God works in mysterious ways that we cannot understand" coward BS.

 

I think that god keeps changing it just to fuck with scientists.

 

LogicFlux you dont believe that do you thats would be sad

I think that god keeps changing it just to fuck with scientists.

 

I should state I do believe there is a God, in fact I believe I know there is a God, and I believe he, she or it, is within all of us. I also totally believe in evolution and think it's the only logical way it can be.

My God, being within all of us:
-did write the bible.
-did cause war
-did give peace
-etc. etc.

In fact I believe if man played any part in any subject you care to name then God played his part too.

I'm not denying the existence of God, but I am denying he's some bloke up in some non-existent heaven ready to judge us at our death. He's with all of us every hour of the day ready to do our bidding.

He's the guy or girl reading these words aloud to you right now in your head.

Think, and you're talking with God. He's listening to everything you do, everything you hear & say.

If you are not sure on something, then neither is he.

He's tricky, just like me. He's good looking just like me & he's very witty, err, just like you!

Now that's where I stand with God.

 

So basically you are calling nature God...?

 

I'll call him thought.

EDIT: which may have brought about nature

 

Ok, i think i put that exapmle not in the best way, but the point i was tryin to make is : Every thing has a creator why should the Universe be an exception?

Wo wo this guys seems to be getting desperate...!
One question to you....and this is a genuine query(no sarcasm) Scientists found out a very large skull which was something in between human and ape and they called it missing link! But point arises is that if on a massive scale humans evolved from apes and this skull was the transition phase, they why did not we find thousands of such skulls. If evolution is correct, we should have found thousands in fact millions of such remains.

Please don't tell me that some religious fanatic collected them and buried them in vatican city!

My point was everything was created why should Universe be an exception?

So far we haven't find any Et life, that's true? isn't it?Seems like all the evolution took place on planet Earth, while mother nature left the rest of the Universe.

And i don't know why you guys are talking as if Evolution is a fact, its just a theory! Mathematics is the language of sciene, and Darwin forgot to give any equations about evolution.

Richard Dawkins himself admits that this theory is based on circumstantial evidences....................meaning he did not see evolution happening but sees its circumstances and "effects"......But there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that suggests creationism!

 

Although I believe life adapts to its surroundings (its only natural), but for all of you talking about the theory of evolution... it's a good idea to remember it's just that, a theory.

I believe in an impersonal God, the one you describe. He probably doesn't even have a brain to think with (let alone semen to impregnate a virgin with), yet for everything that exists there is a cause.

The universe exists therefore God is the cause.

Atheists used to claim the universe was eternal but now we've pinpointed a rough date of creation. Now Atheists are explaining away the creation of the universe with the big bang theory, something a catholic priest originally presented (lol).

Those things haven't been around forever. Pollution does a lot more than just damage the environment.

 

Not everything necessarily is "created", Things are perfectly able to "form" according to natural laws. Everything from galaxies to snowflakes, while appearing to have an element of "design" about them have simply formed on their own.

We have no way of knowing if life exists on other planets yet. And even if there is no other life (with i suspect is not the case) evolution deals with the diversity of life, not the origin of it. Try to keep up. All i seem to do with you people is constantly explain simple concepts and the definitions of words.

let's put this falsehood to bed, Again. In science a "theory" is the highest status an idea can attain, it isn't a rung on the ladder of certainty. It will never become a law. Theories explain facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

Gravitational theory explains the facts of gravity.
Atomic theory explains the facts of atoms.
Tide theory explains the facts of tides.
Evolutionary theory explains the facts of evolution.

if you want a mathematical equation explaining evolution then not only do you have no understanding of what evolution is, but you are also utterly ignorant regarding mathematics.

Richard Dawkins wouldn't have said that. Evolution is very much observable.

you get an F- for that last post. it was pitiful. Now go away and read a book.

it's also good to learn what a scientific theory is before claiming evolution is "just a theory".
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

 

Thank you sir for making me feel like a dumbass!

 

You shouldn't feel silly for explaining your point of view.

In an earlier post you asked for someone to debate with. Now you got the debate you wanted. God works in mysterious ways haha.

 

Part of Dawkins' Interview:
Below is a complete unedited transcript of what professor Dawkins said about this:



BILL MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?


RICHARD DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.


MOYERS: What do you mean It’s been observed?


DAWKINS: The consequences of. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn’t actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Now, any detective…


MOYERS: Circumstantial evidence.


DAWKINS: Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence…………

And Mr I-know-every-thing-I-hate-all-religions, what about my other question. If evolution did occur and as we see millions of humans so it may have occured on a massive scale, where are the skeletons of the transition phase. While your anscestors were half apes and half humans where did they used to bury themselves, So far Scientisits have come up with only one skull, only ONE!

And don't miss this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

 

However you conceive HIM to be, GOD is Omnicient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent. The fact that you throw your challenge for someone
to "come convince me god exists" is already an indication of God's
existence regardless of whether you already believe in Him, or not
YET. In His correct timing, God will manifest Himself on you, and by
then you will come to believe that He exists not only in the Amazon,
or in India, or in America, or in Europe or in Asia; you will come to
realize that GOD is in YOU!

 

If dawkins did say that, He is wrong, Though i suspect it's nothing more than a quote mine. And i'm sure if he was pressed he would have clarified.

We see evolution easily in lower forms like bacteria and viruses every day, and even in larger organisms like moths. The peppered moth, between the onset of the industrial revolution and the introduction of the clean air act, changed it's colour twice. The colour of an entire species changed twice in the space of about 100 years due to environmental changes.

As for transitional forms, We have lots of fossils showing a transitional forms. The argument that transitional forms don't exist is an old, and utterly flawed one. Transitional forms are alive now, We don't even need fossils. Cut open a snake and you'll find a vestigial pelvis, whales have vestigial legs, These are creatures that are transitional forms. human embryos even form gill slits and tails during development which are caused by the same genes that produce gills in fish and tails in lizards.

Also your claim that we have only found one transitional skull between lower primates and humans kinda shoots your own argument down in flames doesn't it? I mean, How many do we need to prove it happened, Just the one, right? If you want more, though, we also have Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis. All transitional.

if you yourself admit that we have one transitional skull how on earth can you then claim transition doesn't occur? Quick, change your argument in order to ignore the glaring flaw in your logic!

As for the video, it was a fake. The video exposing it is right there in the related videos box. The thing with creationists is their arguments are so weak and so easily defeated that dishonesty has become their main weapon now. If you want an example of a mutation which "adds information" to a genome, downs syndrome. It's not particularly beneficial, but it adds an entire chromosome, so don't pretend it can't happen.

 

what Dawkins means is that evolution hasn't been observed in the way that creationists demand to be seen in order to accept it (say, actually observing, real-time with naked eyes a species turning into another). By circumstantial evidence he means everything that's evidence for evolution, which is enormous and undeniable (by the intellectually honest or the not too dumb). It's the same kind of 'circumstantial' evidence we have for the existence of the atom, for example. Nobody can see an atom directly, and this is impossible because atoms are smaller than visible light wavelength.

 

Ok I should of said anthropogenesis not necessarily evolution in general but a branch of it from another person who played with ideas out there.

I'm pretty sure in just about every theory there is a bunch of math behind the scenes. Go on, try and avoid this.

Here you go:
http://darwinconspiracy.com/article_1_rev2.php

Science and math are important. Don't try and weasel your way out of it. You know it's a necessity.