Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy evolution

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So now you're admiting that evolution in no way means,
or can be said, or used in such a way that constitutes a
metamorphosis i.e. the dinos changed to birds and all life
shares a common ancestor. That couldn't be God BTW.

Also, I do own a dictionary but would like to point out that
if science wouldn't exaggerate the meaning. We wouldn't be
arguing anything.

The definition hasn't got anything to do with what you're arguing.

Try again?

The word exists so creation is invalid. That's ignorance.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So now you're admiting that evolution in no way means,
or can be said, or used in such a way that constitutes a
metamorphosis i.e. the dinos changed to birds and all life
shares a common ancestor. That couldn't be God BTW.

I admitted nothing. I just gave you the definition of the word evolution. There is a difference between the word evolution and the Theory of Evolution.

Also, I do own a dictionary but would like to point out that
if science wouldn't exaggerate the meaning. We wouldn't be
arguing anything.

Nothing is exaggerated. If we are talking about a person aging to old age or an animal changing over many generations into a different animal it is still change over time, which is the definition of evolution.

The definition hasn't got anything to do with what you're arguing.

Try again?

The word exists so creation is invalid. That's ignorance.

I'm agnostic. I know I've told you this before. Stop assuming I'm atheist. Therefore I hold ZERO stance on whether god exists or not. I do firmly believe that the bible is a book of mythologies, but I certainly don't disbelieve in god.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And I've never assumed nor called you an atheist.

a reply to: randyvs

You were the one who put these words in my mouth:

The word exists so creation is invalid. That's ignorance.

I've said many times that evolution and a creator can co-exist. You are implying with this statement that I don't believe that can be true.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because you certainly argue like an atheist.
And that isn't an insult by any means.
Where are all your arguments FOR Gods existence?

a reply to: randyvs

That's because the claim "god exists" is an assumption. It has no evidence to back it up. So while I don't have any evidence to say that god doesn't exist, I'm not going to assume he does. In fact, I'm going to use Occam's Razor (the outcome with the least assumptions is usually the correct one) and default to the null case which is that god most likely doesn't exist. None of that is proof of god not existing, Occam's Razor could be wrong in this case, but assumptions lead to confirmation bias and confirmation bias taints scientific findings. I'd say the same thing to the militant atheists that claim with 100% that god doesn't exist because that is also an assumption.

So for instance, evolution is a process. Processes are how things are done. God could very well have pushed a button or willed things and evolution kicks in. It isn't that far fetched. We have computer programs these days that use recursive processes to design HIGHLY complex software and materials. This is key by the way, because evolution itself is a highly recursive process. So if we as humans can design simple recursive processes that output very complicated things, it reasons that there can be universal processes that also work similarly, albeit on a much grander scale. This thought process allows for the existence as well as the non-existence of god since we don't know what kick started evolution in the first place.

By the way here is the definition of recursion if you are unfamiliar with the concept. It is something you study extensively when majoring in Computer Science, but it occurs to me that people outside of the Computer Science field (and mathematics) are likely to be unfamiliar with it (not that it doesn't exist outside CS).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And you've never used a durogatory term for God, against
anyone who chooses to believe in a supreme spiritual
being, of unimaginable intelligence?

a reply to: randyvs

I try to refrain from ad hominem attacks on this website.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That doesn't answer the question.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
a reply to: Tangerine

Just like the MSM, education and the control of knowledge is nothing but a mind control technique.

What most believe is education, is in reality indoctrination.

Are you interested in the truth?

Truth is a belief. There are many truths. Beware of people who claim to have "THE TRUTH". They have an inflated sense of self-importance. Ultimately, they always ask that you take their word for "THE TRUTH" and become angry when you won't do so.

a reply to: Tangerine

Beware of people who claim to have "THE TRUTH".

Why didn't you just say this Tan? [ Beware of "THE TRUTH" ]

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That doesn't answer the question.

Well you are more than welcome to peruse my post history and look for some.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thank you Shot but I'm good.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: randyvs

That's because the claim "god exists" is an assumption. It has no evidence to back it up. ).

It isn't an assumption for those that KNOW God exists. No evidence? LOTS of evidence exists to support God existing and creation being the beginning of it including the label "evolution" which isn't happening now since human DNA is getting weaker and breaking down and becoming diluted as opposed to thousands of years ago.

Testimony is considered evidence in murder trials that have the death penalty, but if it is someone saying they know God exists because of a miracle or something seemingly impossible that saved someone's life, or any number of stories told that are testimony of God existing, then the people so against this possibility come out and bash using any means including non scientific defenses against it plus all sorts of other methods of debunking the existance of God.

A lot of people "Know" God exists because God intervened in their life for some purpose and there are thousands of people telling their stories about those events in books and videos and all sorts of media for centuries.

I don't think they could all be lying, and those stories do qualify as evidence. That doesn't mean you have to believe it of course, but it is what it is.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

nice post

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Burden of proof in law is entirely different to how it is seen in science.

Personal anecdotes are non-evidence as far as science is concerned. They are only useful in forming a hypothesis, which you would then need to go on and verify experimentally to have anything remotely resembling scientific evidence.

That thing about human DNA 'breaking down and becoming diluted' - yeah I haven't heard that one before and it sounds pretty dubious quite frankly. Evolution has not stopped for us, although it may have been slowed down a lot by our shaping of our own environments which removes environmental pressures which would normally act upon evolving species - and I suspect not by our DNA becoming diluted or broken down (which I am highly doubtful of anyway).

Whether people are lying or not is irrelevant. People can still be mistaken. They can still have an imbalance of chemistry in their brains or be high or even just exposed to certain electromagnetic fields which can make them think they have seen all sorts of strange things.

For example -

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Unexplainable things happening isn't evidence for god. It could easily be confirmation bias, where somebody has strong faith, and their relative goes to the hospital for trauma and isn't expected to survive. They then pray for a relative to get better. The person pulls through. To them, that proves god intervened, when there could be dozens of other possible explanations (ie smart surgeons, equipment problems or misdiagnosis in the beginning, or simple luck).

God allegedly intervenes in people's lives, but oddly enough you never see amputees being healed, torn tendons fixed, restoring someone who has been decapitated, or instantly healing a broken bone. The so called miracles are not really anything extraordinary and most can't even be verified as truth, more like coincidences they don't understand.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: randyvs

That's because the claim "god exists" is an assumption. It has no evidence to back it up. ).

It isn't an assumption for those that KNOW God exists. No evidence? LOTS of evidence exists to support God existing and creation being the beginning of it including the label "evolution" which isn't happening now since human DNA is getting weaker and breaking down and becoming diluted as opposed to thousands of years ago.

This is 100% untrue.

Testimony is considered evidence in murder trials that have the death penalty, but if it is someone saying they know God exists because of a miracle or something seemingly impossible that saved someone's life, or any number of stories told that are testimony of God existing, then the people so against this possibility come out and bash using any means including non scientific defenses against it plus all sorts of other methods of debunking the existance of God.

Courtroom evidence is NOT the same thing as scientific evidence. I don't care what testimonials you have, it DOESN'T count as scientific evidence.

A lot of people "Know" God exists because God intervened in their life for some purpose and there are thousands of people telling their stories about those events in books and videos and all sorts of media for centuries.

A lot of people "know" god exists because they were born into Christian families and were told that he existed. That's called conditioning. It creates a confirmation bias when you witness something unexplainable.

I don't think they could all be lying, and those stories do qualify as evidence. That doesn't mean you have to believe it of course, but it is what it is.

I don't think they are all lying either. I think the bible is exaggerated real stories of every day events.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: randyvs



I am confused about this....
Why does atheism need evolution to exist?

Creationists are obsessed with disproving evolution theory, for the simple reason that it contradicts the book they worship. If you hold that evolution is a real process then how can you believe the book as well? You can't, therefore you must be an atheist. Creationist logic, I know. Don't mind that evolution doesn't actually disprove God, that's not important, it's the book, they need the book, the book is paramount.

Evolution is a splinter in the mind of the creationist, it drives them nuts, and they will go to great lengths to attack it.

I've been reading this thread since the start and I still have yet to see an explanation as to WHY the cut rocks disprove the theory of evolution.

All I've seen is the OP continually make comments that the audience should intrinsically *know* the same level of understand they do, of which they are NOT imparting into the conversation in order to clarify their original position of the debate.

And this always happens on ATS. an OP will make a thread, usually something ridiculous like this one, and when questioned by others, you get either :

- the silly OP mystical rebuttal ("One should learn to walk before they run...")
- the OP gainsaying the queries or denials of the audience

Can we not have some "auto-delete" of threads where the OP refuses to clarify or actually argue their position rationally and logically?