The house fly and the rose are separated by possibly billions of years, but you are placing them into the same genus?
deadpool86x
Genus? No. Domain.
Seriously, you're trying to argue biology and you don't know the difference between a genus and a domain? :?
You again, dont seem to be able to see past your own nose at what you are saying. You are saying that this matter that makes them related is self generating, that without programming it can code itself. Again, the ipod can suck songs into existence and program them to a specific setting without someone pressing the buttons.
deadpool86x
You can invent faulty analogies if you want, but that does not change the fact that even a rose and a house fly have traits in common. You challenged what I said, and I answered, case closed.
My explaination for the tailbone is that during the development of a fetus, it grows upward into the body which promotes spinal growth. Everything in the body is a switch for something else, something always activates another function. Sometimes the fetus is born with a soft tail and is the result of its inability to grow properly. Its very simple.
deadpool86x
No, it's not very simple; we have a tailbone - a bone whose function in every other animal is to support a tail - yet we have no tail. You are dodging the issue. A tailbone with no tail is a rather large problem if one wishes to argue in favor of design rather than evolution.
I didnt quote some of it because it was nonsense to me and nobody else addressed the issues you stated in 16 pages of text. There was no need as nobody really care for it at all because the majority bypassed it as nonsense and to be overlooked.
deadpool86x
"It was nonsense to me" as in you could not rebut it? Because the amount of stuff that you're replying to seems to be getting, um, shorter and shorter.
You can say I am not interested in things all you want GabuEx. But the fact of the matter is my mathematical representations of how things played out make sense. The universe appeared from nothing
nothing is 0
then something came to be
0+0=a number
How is that meaningless? Is it meaningless because you say it is and cannot explain it? Because in all of your posts so far you've failed to provide a shred of justification for anything ive asked?
deadpool86x
Science does not say that something came from nothing, so yes, what you are saying is meaningless as far as science is concerned, and you've previously said "God is 1" which was the part that was truly mathematically meaningless.
Your replies are short lived and reside inside the box.deadpool86x
If by "the box" you mean coherency and grounded in basic scientific understanding, then yes, I suppose my replies do reply inside "the box", which does not strike me as a particularly terrible place to be in.
You claim meaninglessness in my posts but i prove them to be worth something. maybe you should go ask your professors and mr hawkings to explain how the idea of the magic behind a god suddenly appearing is nonsense compared to the idea that the universe sprang into existence and wrote itself without it actually being self aware or alive. Oh wait...all atheists avoid that question and claim "WE DONT KNOW" well, if you dont know then why do you call yourself an atheist who doesnt believe in god?
lol, failure.
deadpool86x
A brief list of things regarding which people in history have said "I don't know, therefore God did it":
- Lightning
- Earthquakes
- Disease
- Celestial motion
- Stability of the solar system
The idea that a lack of understanding implies God is not one that has a terribly good track record.
Log in to comment