a scientific proof that GOD existes ... ( long read )...

When those skinks turn into dogs, let me know.

KH-mixerX

When those skinks turn into dogs, let me know.

KH-mixerX

I've just realized that whenever I post in this thread it dies, like an anti-bump, so whenever someone posts something ridiculous questioning the laws of science and quoting ridiculous pseudo-science as facts I will anti-bump this thread. So go on, scurry back to yourt caves which I assume you live in given how deplorable you claim science is and given that modern tenements are products of science. In fact, you're using a scientific invention to try and communicate the fallibility of science, how ironic is that?

[QUOTE="thriteenthmonke"][QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

I find it hard to believe that evolution, which went on for millions of years to get to the point it's at right now, we have never actually recorded in human history. Why is it that the only evolution we see anymore is in microscopic bacteria and the like?

When those skinks turn into dogs, let me know.

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

[QUOTE="thriteenthmonke"] The observation of evolution in macroscopic organisms is generally difficult to observe due to the time scale involved. It is expected that we can observe evolution in bacteria more easily because they reproduce at a rate orders of magnitude greater than macroscopic organisms. Finally I would like to link to this article I came across a few days ago which describes a current major change being observed in some macroscopic organisms. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2010/08/26/15151061.htm

lordreaven

When those skinks turn into dogs, let me know.:P

you missed the point. Eveloution dosn't turn an animal into another creature, it helps teh creature adapt to its enviroment. Take a look at how antibiotics have to be changed inorder so viruses don't becoem immune to them. Thats what eveloution is.

I'm aware of that. It was a joke. Maybe I should've put an emoticon after it. There we go.

And yes, that is evolution. On the micro level. Which I did admit happens. But species evolution? No.

[QUOTE="lordreaven"][QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

When those skinks turn into dogs, let me know.:P

KH-mixerX

you missed the point. Eveloution dosn't turn an animal into another creature, it helps teh creature adapt to its enviroment. Take a look at how antibiotics have to be changed inorder so viruses don't becoem immune to them. Thats what eveloution is.

I'm aware of that. It was a joke. Maybe I should've put an emoticon after it. There we go.

And yes, that is evolution. On the micro level. Which I did admit happens. But species evolution? No.

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

[QUOTE="lordreaven"]

you missed the point. Eveloution dosn't turn an animal into another creature, it helps teh creature adapt to its enviroment. Take a look at how antibiotics have to be changed inorder so viruses don't becoem immune to them. Thats what eveloution is.

xaos

I'm aware of that. It was a joke. Maybe I should've put an emoticon after it. There we go.

And yes, that is evolution. On the micro level. Which I did admit happens. But species evolution? No.

Who are you to confirm that? They are relevant words that are important to the creation/evolution debate. And yes, it is a debate worth having. Macroevolution is a fallacy no matter how you look at it. Plain and simple. But alas, neither of us are going to convince the other. I digress.

[QUOTE="xaos"] "Microevolution" and "macroevolution" are weasel words with no currency outside of those who deny evolution. However, speciation has been observedKH-mixerX

Who are you to confirm that? They are relevant words that are important to the creation/evolution debate. And yes, it is a debate worth having. Macroevolution is a fallacy no matter how you look at it. Plain and simple. But alas, neither of us are going to convince the other. I digress.

And who are you to say what you're saying? :roll:

Evolution happened, period. I really don't see what there is to argue about it.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

I'm aware of that. It was a joke. Maybe I should've put an emoticon after it. There we go.

And yes, that is evolution. On the micro level. Which I did admit happens. But species evolution? No.

KH-mixerX

Who are you to confirm that? They are relevant words that are important to the creation/evolution debate. And yes, it is a debate worth having. Macroevolution is a fallacy no matter how you look at it. Plain and simple. But alas, neither of us are going to convince the other. I digress.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

I'm aware of that. It was a joke. Maybe I should've put an emoticon after it. There we go.

And yes, that is evolution. On the micro level. Which I did admit happens. But species evolution? No.

KH-mixerX

Who are you to confirm that? They are relevant words that are important to the creation/evolution debate. And yes, it is a debate worth having. Macroevolution is a fallacy no matter how you look at it. Plain and simple. But alas, neither of us are going to convince the other. I digress.

You don't need science to prove god exist , all you need is faith.

You don't need science to prove god exist , all you need is faith.

AussieePet

Faith is not proof, faith is belief despite the lack of proof. Now can this thread please stay dead this time?

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] "Microevolution" and "macroevolution" are weasel words with no currency outside of those who deny evolution. However, speciation has been observedTeenaged

Who are you to confirm that? They are relevant words that are important to the creation/evolution debate. And yes, it is a debate worth having. Macroevolution is a fallacy no matter how you look at it. Plain and simple. But alas, neither of us are going to convince the other. I digress.

http://creationwiki.org/Macroevolution#Controversy_among_evolutionists

@Xaos: Like I said earlier, I'm no scientist. I cannot explain speciation. I just know that I think evolution is not the way life happened on this planet. Call me stupid, ignorant, or any other derogatoryword you want. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

Man, this is hilarious, I post a few quotes by some random people and everyone leaps on it like crazy. I'm not trying to prove anything. Nor do any of you need to refute me. Here's some things that might get your feathers ruffled.

Science's Unexplainable Creatures

Have you ever wondered how anything could evolve by chance? I believe that if evolution were true, which it is not, then when creatures evolved, they would evolve to a state where they are completely independent. They would not depend on other creatures or the environment to live. According to Charles Darwin, "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."

Now, to prove this point I am going to go through some of the creatures living on the planet that scientists have been unable to explain.

Eolidoidea:

Before we go into what an eolidoidea is, first we must discuss what an anenome is. An anenome is a creature that lives in the ocean. For a form of protection from predators, it has spines that inject poison into the body of the predator and kills it. And so the anenome lives to face the next day. However, the eolidoidea have small pockets in their stomachs that store the poison and use it as a form of defense against its predators, and it eats the rest of the anenome. Thus far, science has been unable to explain this creature and how it could have evolved by chance. I have the simple solution to this: God spoke it into being!


Giraffes:

Amazingly enough, giraffes are also hard to explain. A normal giraffe has a long neck, but how does it keep the blood flowing out of its head, or when it bends down to drink, how does it keep the blood from rushing to its head? It is all in the neck. You see, there are blood vessels running up and down the neck that push the blood up to the head when the giraffe is standing up. But when the giraffe puts its neck down, the vessels close up so that the blood doesn't all go into the head. If a giraffe would have evolved by chance, isn't it obvious that the head would have exploded before the vessels had fully evolved? I certainly think so.

White-throated Warblers:

I am going to start this section with a story. There once was a man who had two white-throated warblers in a cage inside a closed up room. There was no window- the only light that came was from an electrical source or a candle. One winter, he noticed that the birds were moving towards the southern side of the cage. Now how on earth did they know that it was winter and that they were supposed to go south? This behaviour is very common among these birds in the wild. The warblers will lay their eggs in Germany, then leave and go to Egypt for the winter. As soon as the eggs hatch and the chicks are able to fly, they go join their parents. How do they know where to go? Scientists have looked at other migrating species and learned that it is not only warblers, but also pigeons, monarch butterflies and others that do this. In order to figure out how they do it, scientists decided to track a pigeon on its flight path. They noticed that the birds did not necessarily use the sun because the flight pattern didn't change when the day was overcast. To test whether or not it was the earth's magnetic field that they were using, the scientists tied an electronic device to the bird and let it loose. The bird did fine when the sun was out, but once clouds covered the sky, they didn't know where they were going. But yet how could they have learned how to use the magnetic field of earth to go south? Obviously it could not have happened by chance. Someone or something had to have told these animals that when the climate is this way, go that way or something. Is it really possible for them to have figured it out on their own?

Castorocauda lutrasimilis:

Scientists have recently found a fossil supposedly dating back millions of years to the Jurassic period. This creature is a mouse-type animal. It has (or had,depending on your viewpoint) the tail of a beaver, the teeth of a seal, the habits of a platypus, hair and sweat glands that modern mammals have, and was about ten times bigger than most mammals from that period were thought to have been. Scientists are now saying that this find proved that mammals were much farther advanced much earlier in the timeline that previously thought. It also supports the fact that mammals were here much earlier before the supposed extinction of the dinosaurs. This animal is just one more proof that God created the creatures of the earth almost simultaneously.

Jurassic Shrimp:

Scientists on the coast of Australia have just unearthed another 'living fossil.' The Jurassic Shrimp are a shrimp genus that was thought to have died out about 50 million years ago. The marine biologists were looking at the life in the Australian seas when they found one of these crustaceans. Scientists knew what it was because it was well known from the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods of time. However, these shrimp were supposed to be extinct. This is similar to another find in the Philippines in the 1970's. A team of fisherman were out getting their daily catch when they caught a ceolacanth. This fish was first rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa, and there was a second species of the ceolacanth found in Indonesia in 1997. The so-called living fossils did not go extinct during the time-period that was previously thought. Our world is a big one. Could there possibly be more finds like these out there?

KH-mixerX

You seem to have a lot of simple solutions. Might you have an equally simple solution for the fact that humans cannot synthesize vitamin C? The natural synthesis of vitamin C requires four enzymes. Most plants and animals on Earth have all four, which is why they do not need to eat anything containing vitamin C. Humans do not - humans only have three (and, completely coincidentally of course, this trait is shared by several other great apes as well, although not all). In addition, there is present in the human genetic code a faulty sequence that, were it formed properly, would cause humans to have the fourth, and would cause humans to be able to synthesize vitamin C.

So the obvious question comes, then: why did God create humans with three of the four enzymes needed to synthesize vitamin C and with a faulty genetic sequence that would give humans the fourth? Just for the lulz?

See, the powerful thing about science is that it doesn't need to have all of the answers to be able to have some of the answers, because it goes from the evidence to conclusions. Evolution is maintained because the evidence supports it - that being the fossil record, the interconnectedness of life on Earth through like traits, the existence of DNA, and the existence of thousands of fossils bearing properties found in two different types of animal, to name a few of the most compelling pieces of evidence. The fact that there are a few fringe spots left not wholly explained to date no more invalidates evolution any more than missing two pieces in a jigsaw puzzle makes you unable to make out the picture contained in the puzzle.

EDIT: Oh, and regarding the opening post, it contains so many misrepresentations of science that I think I'd die if I tried replying to it. :P

You make very valid points with this paragraph. Now, I'm definitely not a scientist, and I often attempt to sound smarter than I actually am. So when I say this, know that it is entirely my opinion.

I think that most of the evidence that supports evolution, in fact, supports just the opposite. That life was indeed created by an intelligent creator. Take for example the interconnectedness on life on Earth. You believe that it means evolution took place. That two fossils containing similar properties means that it must've evolved. I would argue that the interconnectedness is simply proof of a clever creator using a system that works between different species. The fact that our world works as well as it does on it's own is not simply a product of millions of years of chance evolution. The odds against such an idea are staggering. I actually do believe that evolution is real on a micro level. But not on a macro level. Research has shown that mutations are never positive. The few mutations we see today are evidence of that. Take Cancer for example. Cancer is essentially just cellular mutation. Harmful cellular mutation might I add. The concept of an entire species evolving positively into an entirely new species is, frankly, ludicrous. There is absolutely no record of species evolution. I find it hard to believe that evolution, which went on for millions of years to get to the point it's at right now, we have never actually recorded in human history. Why is it that the only evolution we see anymore is in microscopic bacteria and the like? Now, there may be answers for my questions, and I expect GabuEx here to provide them. Like I said, I am no scientist.

I like your analogy at the end of that bolded paragraph. I'm a big fan of analogies. Which is why I'm going to use one right now to close out this post.

When you look at any object or appliance in the modern household today, it's an automatic fact that someone had to of made it. It doesn't need to be debated. A universal truth. Now, a machine is very different from biological tissue, I know. So don't bother pointing it out to me. But why is it that the human body, which is made up of trillions of cells each more complex than a factory the size of a city, can carry the label of random chance? Shouldn't it be assumed that someone had to of made it as well? Humans evolving from a pile of primordial goo is akin to a mother board plugged into a wall evolving into a super computer. It's just not possible. And even if it was...Let's just assume for a moment that it is possible. The human form came into existence completely by chance. This would mean that all of it's complexities such as the brain and central nervous system that all work together in perfect order to keep it alive just randomly happened by chance over millions of years. I'm sorry, but I reject that concept.

Just a side note for anyone who wants to respond to this...

Please be respectful. I'm not trying to start a war. I've been in enough of these debates before though to know that they often turn into wars.

PS: Could you friend me when you get a chance Gabu? I wouldn't mind debating this with you in a more private arena. You seem to me like on of the few people on this sight that actually knows his stuff.

because as i stated and no one seemed to offer a good counter point what stopped jupiter from being the first planet in our solar system and earth crashing into it? thats right pure freakin luck. what are the odds the moon just happened to float by by pure chance and avoid jupiter? what are the odds that earth was moving at just the right speed that force of the sun could stop it and throw it into orbit? and the odds earth just happened to be just right for life which again conviently the moon happened to show up for no reason other than chance. see science can try and fit the evolution of life into the spectrum and come up with a half baked idea that holds little ground and once we start looknig at well gee how did the planets come into being by pure chance too? the idea falls apart even more. and i agree with you why in human history is there no recorded proof of evolution?

i dont get it and you make a valid point why do i assume the toaster wont evovle and was premade but earth no that evolved by pure total luck of the draw its like it went to vegas and kept on winning all 5465467546765765765765765 times. and furthermore who created the laws of physics? did they just magically appear on there own? you know the laws that keep the earth ticking? again inteligent design offers a reasonable answer evolution offers endless questions that wont ever be answered.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

Who are you to confirm that? They are relevant words that are important to the creation/evolution debate. And yes, it is a debate worth having. Macroevolution is a fallacy no matter how you look at it. Plain and simple. But alas, neither of us are going to convince the other. I digress.

KH-mixerX

http://creationwiki.org/Macroevolution#Controversy_among_evolutionists

@Xaos: Like I said earlier, I'm no scientist. I cannot explain speciation. I just know that I think evolution is not the way life happened on this planet. Call me stupid, ignorant, or any other derogatoryword you want. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[QUOTE="AussieePet"]

You don't need science to prove god exist , all you need is faith.

Faith is not proof, faith is belief despite the lack of proof. Now can this thread please stay dead this time?

That is way too much to read -_-

x8VXU6

http://creationwiki.org/Macroevolution#Controversy_among_evolutionists

KH-mixerX

This site is trying very hard to find problems that do not exist.

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

You seem to have a lot of simple solutions. Might you have an equally simple solution for the fact that humans cannot synthesize vitamin C? The natural synthesis of vitamin C requires four enzymes. Most plants and animals on Earth have all four, which is why they do not need to eat anything containing vitamin C. Humans do not - humans only have three (and, completely coincidentally of course, this trait is shared by several other great apes as well, although not all). In addition, there is present in the human genetic code a faulty sequence that, were it formed properly, would cause humans to have the fourth, and would cause humans to be able to synthesize vitamin C.

So the obvious question comes, then: why did God create humans with three of the four enzymes needed to synthesize vitamin C and with a faulty genetic sequence that would give humans the fourth? Just for the lulz?

See, the powerful thing about science is that it doesn't need to have all of the answers to be able to have some of the answers, because it goes from the evidence to conclusions. Evolution is maintained because the evidence supports it - that being the fossil record, the interconnectedness of life on Earth through like traits, the existence of DNA, and the existence of thousands of fossils bearing properties found in two different types of animal, to name a few of the most compelling pieces of evidence. The fact that there are a few fringe spots left not wholly explained to date no more invalidates evolution any more than missing two pieces in a jigsaw puzzle makes you unable to make out the picture contained in the puzzle.

EDIT: Oh, and regarding the opening post, it contains so many misrepresentations of science that I think I'd die if I tried replying to it. :P

kayoticdreamz

You make very valid points with this paragraph. Now, I'm definitely not a scientist, and I often attempt to sound smarter than I actually am. So when I say this, know that it is entirely my opinion.

I think that most of the evidence that supports evolution, in fact, supports just the opposite. That life was indeed created by an intelligent creator. Take for example the interconnectedness on life on Earth. You believe that it means evolution took place. That two fossils containing similar properties means that it must've evolved. I would argue that the interconnectedness is simply proof of a clever creator using a system that works between different species. The fact that our world works as well as it does on it's own is not simply a product of millions of years of chance evolution. The odds against such an idea are staggering. I actually do believe that evolution is real on a micro level. But not on a macro level. Research has shown that mutations are never positive. The few mutations we see today are evidence of that. Take Cancer for example. Cancer is essentially just cellular mutation. Harmful cellular mutation might I add. The concept of an entire species evolving positively into an entirely new species is, frankly, ludicrous. There is absolutely no record of species evolution. I find it hard to believe that evolution, which went on for millions of years to get to the point it's at right now, we have never actually recorded in human history. Why is it that the only evolution we see anymore is in microscopic bacteria and the like? Now, there may be answers for my questions, and I expect GabuEx here to provide them. Like I said, I am no scientist.

I like your analogy at the end of that bolded paragraph. I'm a big fan of analogies. Which is why I'm going to use one right now to close out this post.

When you look at any object or appliance in the modern household today, it's an automatic fact that someone had to of made it. It doesn't need to be debated. A universal truth. Now, a machine is very different from biological tissue, I know. So don't bother pointing it out to me. But why is it that the human body, which is made up of trillions of cells each more complex than a factory the size of a city, can carry the label of random chance? Shouldn't it be assumed that someone had to of made it as well? Humans evolving from a pile of primordial goo is akin to a mother board plugged into a wall evolving into a super computer. It's just not possible. And even if it was...Let's just assume for a moment that it is possible. The human form came into existence completely by chance. This would mean that all of it's complexities such as the brain and central nervous system that all work together in perfect order to keep it alive just randomly happened by chance over millions of years. I'm sorry, but I reject that concept.

Just a side note for anyone who wants to respond to this...

Please be respectful. I'm not trying to start a war. I've been in enough of these debates before though to know that they often turn into wars.

PS: Could you friend me when you get a chance Gabu? I wouldn't mind debating this with you in a more private arena. You seem to me like on of the few people on this sight that actually knows his stuff.

because as i stated and no one seemed to offer a good counter point what stopped jupiter from being the first planet in our solar system and earth crashing into it? thats right pure freakin luck. what are the odds the moon just happened to float by by pure chance and avoid jupiter? what are the odds that earth was moving at just the right speed that force of the sun could stop it and throw it into orbit? and the odds earth just happened to be just right for life which again conviently the moon happened to show up for no reason other than chance. see science can try and fit the evolution of life into the spectrum and come up with a half baked idea that holds little ground and once we start looknig at well gee how did the planets come into being by pure chance too? the idea falls apart even more. and i agree with you why in human history is there no recorded proof of evolution?

i dont get it and you make a valid point why do i assume the toaster wont evovle and was premade but earth no that evolved by pure total luck of the draw its like it went to vegas and kept on winning all 5465467546765765765765765 times. and furthermore who created the laws of physics? did they just magically appear on there own? you know the laws that keep the earth ticking? again inteligent design offers a reasonable answer evolution offers endless questions that wont ever be answered.

It's not a valid point, the odds could be one in whatever unimaginably large number you can dream up and there's still a chance of it. Besides, odds are used to determine probability in areas where there are no clear guiding principles, evolution has clear, guiding principles. The complexity of an object does not refute evolution. Just because YOU cannot understand how a complex object can come to be without a creator does not mean that it is impossible. Now can this thread please die a miserable death and stay dead?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

Who are you to confirm that? They are relevant words that are important to the creation/evolution debate. And yes, it is a debate worth having. Macroevolution is a fallacy no matter how you look at it. Plain and simple. But alas, neither of us are going to convince the other. I digress.

KH-mixerX

http://creationwiki.org/Macroevolution#Controversy_among_evolutionists

@Xaos: Like I said earlier, I'm no scientist. I cannot explain speciation. I just know that I think evolution is not the way life happened on this planet. Call me stupid, ignorant, or any other derogatoryword you want. It just doesn't make sense to me.

6834563786545436y97438567856375346574564375634 to 1.

kayoticdreamz

Odds have nothing to do with god and creationism. We had 100% chance to exist because that's what happened. We don't need a god to "show us the way" and "put us on earth". I don't see what this has anything to do with god.

btw , so many things exist and cant be proven ....gubrushadow

Such as?

btw , so many things exist and cant be proven ....gubrushadow

True, but god is not one of them. (meaning there is no god)

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"]btw , so many things exist and cant be proven ....theone86

Such as?

In the beginning, there was nothing.

Then some magical old man in the clouds farted and the universe was created.

[QUOTE="AussieePet"]

You don't need science to prove god exist , all you need is faith.

theone86

Faith is not proof, faith is belief despite the lack of proof. Now can this thread please stay dead this time?

Never once i claimed faith was proof. :)

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"]btw , so many things exist and cant be proven ....gubrushadow

Such as?

Yes, you can prove many > one, at least in a mathematical sense. You don't need to prove that a trianlge has 180 degrees, that's a simple fact, if its angles did not add up to 180 degrees it wouldn't be a triangle by definition.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Faith is not proof, faith is belief despite the lack of proof. Now can this thread please stay dead this time?

AussieePet

Never once i claimed faith was proof. :)

You don't need science to prove god exist , all you need is faith[to prove god exists].

AussieePet

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

Who are you to confirm that? They are relevant words that are important to the creation/evolution debate. And yes, it is a debate worth having. Macroevolution is a fallacy no matter how you look at it. Plain and simple. But alas, neither of us are going to convince the other. I digress.

KH-mixerX

http://creationwiki.org/Macroevolution#Controversy_among_evolutionists

@Xaos: Like I said earlier, I'm no scientist. I cannot explain speciation. I just know that I think evolution is not the way life happened on this planet. Call me stupid, ignorant, or any other derogatoryword you want. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

You make very valid points with this paragraph. Now, I'm definitely not a scientist, and I often attempt to sound smarter than I actually am. So when I say this, know that it is entirely my opinion.

I think that most of the evidence that supports evolution, in fact, supports just the opposite. That life was indeed created by an intelligent creator. Take for example the interconnectedness on life on Earth. You believe that it means evolution took place. That two fossils containing similar properties means that it must've evolved. I would argue that the interconnectedness is simply proof of a clever creator using a system that works between different species. The fact that our world works as well as it does on it's own is not simply a product of millions of years of chance evolution. The odds against such an idea are staggering. I actually do believe that evolution is real on a micro level. But not on a macro level. Research has shown that mutations are never positive. The few mutations we see today are evidence of that. Take Cancer for example. Cancer is essentially just cellular mutation. Harmful cellular mutation might I add. The concept of an entire species evolving positively into an entirely new species is, frankly, ludicrous. There is absolutely no record of species evolution. I find it hard to believe that evolution, which went on for millions of years to get to the point it's at right now, we have never actually recorded in human history. Why is it that the only evolution we see anymore is in microscopic bacteria and the like? Now, there may be answers for my questions, and I expect GabuEx here to provide them. Like I said, I am no scientist.

I like your analogy at the end of that bolded paragraph. I'm a big fan of analogies. Which is why I'm going to use one right now to close out this post.

When you look at any object or appliance in the modern household today, it's an automatic fact that someone had to of made it. It doesn't need to be debated. A universal truth. Now, a machine is very different from biological tissue, I know. So don't bother pointing it out to me. But why is it that the human body, which is made up of trillions of cells each more complex than a factory the size of a city, can carry the label of random chance? Shouldn't it be assumed that someone had to of made it as well? Humans evolving from a pile of primordial goo is akin to a mother board plugged into a wall evolving into a super computer. It's just not possible. And even if it was...Let's just assume for a moment that it is possible. The human form came into existence completely by chance. This would mean that all of it's complexities such as the brain and central nervous system that all work together in perfect order to keep it alive just randomly happened by chance over millions of years. I'm sorry, but I reject that concept.

Just a side note for anyone who wants to respond to this...

Please be respectful. I'm not trying to start a war. I've been in enough of these debates before though to know that they often turn into wars.

PS: Could you friend me when you get a chance Gabu? I wouldn't mind debating this with you in a more private arena. You seem to me like on of the few people on this sight that actually knows his stuff.

theone86

because as i stated and no one seemed to offer a good counter point what stopped jupiter from being the first planet in our solar system and earth crashing into it? thats right pure freakin luck. what are the odds the moon just happened to float by by pure chance and avoid jupiter? what are the odds that earth was moving at just the right speed that force of the sun could stop it and throw it into orbit? and the odds earth just happened to be just right for life which again conviently the moon happened to show up for no reason other than chance. see science can try and fit the evolution of life into the spectrum and come up with a half baked idea that holds little ground and once we start looknig at well gee how did the planets come into being by pure chance too? the idea falls apart even more. and i agree with you why in human history is there no recorded proof of evolution?

i dont get it and you make a valid point why do i assume the toaster wont evovle and was premade but earth no that evolved by pure total luck of the draw its like it went to vegas and kept on winning all 5465467546765765765765765 times. and furthermore who created the laws of physics? did they just magically appear on there own? you know the laws that keep the earth ticking? again inteligent design offers a reasonable answer evolution offers endless questions that wont ever be answered.

It's not a valid point, the odds could be one in whatever unimaginably large number you can dream up and there's still a chance of it. Besides, odds are used to determine probability in areas where there are no clear guiding principles, evolution has clear, guiding principles. The complexity of an object does not refute evolution. Just because YOU cannot understand how a complex object can come to be without a creator does not mean that it is impossible. Now can this thread please die a miserable death and stay dead?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"] see this is what ive argued and no one here has actually rebuked my claim. heck my last two posts were hardly rebuked but one part was taken and anaylized while missing everything else and its here again in what you said the entire known universe by means of evolution appeared by pure freakin accident and chance. total chance the odds against as i stated and was laughed at for stating are like t6834563786545436y97438567856375346574564375634 to 1. evolution just does not exist. theres no concrete proof for it. theres far more proof for inteligent design that everything is organized just so.

because as i stated and no one seemed to offer a good counter point what stopped jupiter from being the first planet in our solar system and earth crashing into it? thats right pure freakin luck. what are the odds the moon just happened to float by by pure chance and avoid jupiter? what are the odds that earth was moving at just the right speed that force of the sun could stop it and throw it into orbit? and the odds earth just happened to be just right for life which again conviently the moon happened to show up for no reason other than chance. see science can try and fit the evolution of life into the spectrum and come up with a half baked idea that holds little ground and once we start looknig at well gee how did the planets come into being by pure chance too? the idea falls apart even more. and i agree with you why in human history is there no recorded proof of evolution?

i dont get it and you make a valid point why do i assume the toaster wont evovle and was premade but earth no that evolved by pure total luck of the draw its like it went to vegas and kept on winning all 5465467546765765765765765 times. and furthermore who created the laws of physics? did they just magically appear on there own? you know the laws that keep the earth ticking? again inteligent design offers a reasonable answer evolution offers endless questions that wont ever be answered.

kayoticdreamz

It's not a valid point, the odds could be one in whatever unimaginably large number you can dream up and there's still a chance of it. Besides, odds are used to determine probability in areas where there are no clear guiding principles, evolution has clear, guiding principles. The complexity of an object does not refute evolution. Just because YOU cannot understand how a complex object can come to be without a creator does not mean that it is impossible. Now can this thread please die a miserable death and stay dead?

No, god is possible but highly unlikely, because though it is possible to imagine the idea of god, co conrete proof of his existence exists. Evolution, on the other hand, has concrete science backing it up, and as I said it is NOT a matter of chance because chance pertains to situations with no concrete principles guiding them.

evolution breaches this point of impossibleness and then shatters it with some insane level of impossiblitiy that i cant even fathem.

kayoticdreamz

Fascinating.

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]

evolution breaches this point of impossibleness and then shatters it with some insane level of impossiblitiy that i cant even fathem.

bloodling

Fascinating.

I love the relevance of certain areas of science to other, seemingly unrelated areas, in this case psychology and projection.

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"] see this is what ive argued and no one here has actually rebuked my claim. heck my last two posts were hardly rebuked but one part was taken and anaylized while missing everything else and its here again in what you said the entire known universe by means of evolution appeared by pure freakin accident and chance. total chance the odds against as i stated and was laughed at for stating are like t6834563786545436y97438567856375346574564375634 to 1. evolution just does not exist. theres no concrete proof for it. theres far more proof for inteligent design that everything is organized just so.

because as i stated and no one seemed to offer a good counter point what stopped jupiter from being the first planet in our solar system and earth crashing into it? thats right pure freakin luck. what are the odds the moon just happened to float by by pure chance and avoid jupiter? what are the odds that earth was moving at just the right speed that force of the sun could stop it and throw it into orbit? and the odds earth just happened to be just right for life which again conviently the moon happened to show up for no reason other than chance. see science can try and fit the evolution of life into the spectrum and come up with a half baked idea that holds little ground and once we start looknig at well gee how did the planets come into being by pure chance too? the idea falls apart even more. and i agree with you why in human history is there no recorded proof of evolution?

i dont get it and you make a valid point why do i assume the toaster wont evovle and was premade but earth no that evolved by pure total luck of the draw its like it went to vegas and kept on winning all 5465467546765765765765765 times. and furthermore who created the laws of physics? did they just magically appear on there own? you know the laws that keep the earth ticking? again inteligent design offers a reasonable answer evolution offers endless questions that wont ever be answered.

It's not a valid point, the odds could be one in whatever unimaginably large number you can dream up and there's still a chance of it. Besides, odds are used to determine probability in areas where there are no clear guiding principles, evolution has clear, guiding principles. The complexity of an object does not refute evolution. Just because YOU cannot understand how a complex object can come to be without a creator does not mean that it is impossible. Now can this thread please die a miserable death and stay dead?

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

It's not a valid point, the odds could be one in whatever unimaginably large number you can dream up and there's still a chance of it. Besides, odds are used to determine probability in areas where there are no clear guiding principles, evolution has clear, guiding principles. The complexity of an object does not refute evolution. Just because YOU cannot understand how a complex object can come to be without a creator does not mean that it is impossible. Now can this thread please die a miserable death and stay dead?

No, god is possible but highly unlikely, because though it is possible to imagine the idea of god, co conrete proof of his existence exists. Evolution, on the other hand, has concrete science backing it up, and as I said it is NOT a matter of chance because chance pertains to situations with no concrete principles guiding them.

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"][QUOTE="theone86"]

It's not a valid point, the odds could be one in whatever unimaginably large number you can dream up and there's still a chance of it. Besides, odds are used to determine probability in areas where there are no clear guiding principles, evolution has clear, guiding principles. The complexity of an object does not refute evolution. Just because YOU cannot understand how a complex object can come to be without a creator does not mean that it is impossible. Now can this thread please die a miserable death and stay dead?

hydratedleaf

but imagine in the beginning evolution had to be no principles none it was just occuring. and there is proof of God existing. try praying just asking try having faith. as another guy posted before God could come down from the heavens and youd still deny it. heck the whole freakin earth bears witness to a God existing. but i love how you claim God is unlikely yet evolution with its millions of holes is pure undisputed fact. yet anybody who knows God is real can in fact say it for sure with no doubt.yet evolution has tons of doubt and unlikelyness.kayoticdreamz

There is absolutely no hole in the concept, why do you think there are different races and so many animals today? Because of evolution, not because god was a good 3d modeling artist.

[QUOTE="hydratedleaf"][QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"] for instance lets say there is a 56754765756765765 in 1 chance to jump off a 50 foot cliff and live. sure i suppose possible. but likely no. 100 foot cliff i suppose again possible stranger things have indeed happened. but again not likely and so is the case here sure i suppose possible but HIGHLY unlikely. at some point say the 1000 foot cliff it becomes impossible evolution breaches this point of impossibleness and then shatters it.kayoticdreamz

[QUOTE="AussieePet"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Never once i claimed faith was proof. :)

theone86

You don't need science to prove god exist , all you need is faith[to prove god exists].

AussieePet

Like i said i never said proof was faith.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"] for instance lets say there is a 56754765756765765 in 1 chance to jump off a 50 foot cliff and live. sure i suppose possible. but likely no. 100 foot cliff i suppose again possible stranger things have indeed happened. but again not likely and so is the case here sure i suppose possible but HIGHLY unlikely. at some point say the 1000 foot cliff it becomes impossible evolution breaches this point of impossibleness and then shatters it with some insane level of impossiblitiy that i cant even fathem.

kayoticdreamz

No, god is possible but highly unlikely, because though it is possible to imagine the idea of god, co conrete proof of his existence exists. Evolution, on the other hand, has concrete science backing it up, and as I said it is NOT a matter of chance because chance pertains to situations with no concrete principles guiding them.

Prayer is not proof.

Saying look at the world is not proof, in fact it's not even a coherent argument.

If god did come down from the heavens and gave me sufficient reason to believe he is actually god I would not deny it.

The idea of god's existence has holes as well, the difference is that science doesn't try to invent new explanations for its holes, it tries to explain what it can through experimentation and empirical proof.

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"][QUOTE="theone86"]

Such as?

theone86

Yes, you can prove many > one, at least in a mathematical sense. You don't need to prove that a trianlge has 180 degrees, that's a simple fact, if its angles did not add up to 180 degrees it wouldn't be a triangle by definition.

let me introduce you to 2 scientists , lopashewski and reyman (think i wrought them wrong) one proved with proof and nobody could argue with him that triangle have more than 180 degrees , and the other proved that its always < 180 degrees , what can you say now ??not to mention that triangle is 180 here since its flat , how is it in space , or at the atoms ? that first , also how is many > one ?? (see wikipedia)

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"] can you prove that many is > one , or that the triangle have 180 degrees ? that saying is not by me , qouted from the one who invented math , his name is iqlidus in my langauage btw... gubrushadow

Yes, you can prove many > one, at least in a mathematical sense. You don't need to prove that a trianlge has 180 degrees, that's a simple fact, if its angles did not add up to 180 degrees it wouldn't be a triangle by definition.

let me introduce you to 2 scientists , lopashewski and reyman (think i wrought them wrong) one proved with proof and nobody could argue with him that triangle have more than 180 degrees , and the other proved that its always < 180 degrees , what can you say now ??not to mention that triangle is 180 here since its flat , how is it in space , or at the atoms ? that first , also how is many > one ?? (see wikipedia)

I can't find either one on wikipedia, need links. I do know that 2 will always be greater than one and so forth, unless you delve into theoretical mathmatics. TBQH, that doesn't have any practical application to the subject at hand because it is theoretical. As to a triangle, I doubt that anyone is able to prove that a triangle is anything other than a shape with three angles, sides, and all angles equalling 180 degress. If you're saying a drawing of a triangle, yes, that's because a drawing is an imperfect representation, but a triangle itself will always have 180 degrees.

let me introduce you to 2 scientists , lopashewski and reyman (think i wrought them wrong) one proved with proof and nobody could argue with him that triangle have more than 180 degrees , and the other proved that its always < 180 degrees , what can you say now ??not to mention that triangle is 180 here since its flat , how is it in space , or at the atoms ? that first , also how is many > one ?? (see wikipedia)

gubrushadow

I have seen one of these crazy equations, it does look valid, but the fact that there are holes even in maths doesn't mean that the whole pictures is completely shattered like you said. Actually, it changes nothing at all.