Compelling and Convincing Evidence that Life was Created! What Say You?

reply to post by randyvs


*One of your biggest arguments is that "there are no transitional fossils*

*There's a living "transitional organism" that you can see with your own eyes*

*You can't come up with a response*

lol

Originally posted by edmc^2
I say - he's got one cookie weird hairdo.

BTW - do you believe that aliens created life on earth and the universe?

If so who created the aliens - another alien being - maybe it's the guy with a cookie hairdo.

just kidding ---

Well, this is a petty argument that goes in circles. From what we understand from a very simple point of view, something HAS to be created by something... if you are so keen to believe this.

Then tell me, who created the creator which created the creator, which created the creator which created the....

That argument just does not work.

Did you know that electrons can be in multiple places at one time? I think you will find that with this knowledge its also fair to assume that we exist in more than one place at a time, seeing as we are 'in simple terms' made up of electrons. There was a thread posted a few days ago about how the universe could in fact be a mandelbrot paradox, by definiton the matter in this universe is part of a single atom of our own universe, which from a mathematical view... a fractal paradox.

No matter how hard you try... the simplest answer is only acceptable by simple minds. I don't understand why we would exist if we were 'created' as you claim by a superior being, and the idea of this creator was for us to simply accept we were created? Bow down to me, and question no more... sorry but i would rather not exist if that were the case. The universe is an awesome place, we know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT!

reply to post by edog11

No I can't. That's my point. I can't honestly tell you that ANYGHING is 100% sure since my conscious "mind" is currently unable to deal with infinite knowledge. Maybe the universe will cease to exist if Earth gets blown up, and maybe not. I at least admit that I don't know what "reality" is and that there are a lot of things that I don't "know".

Then you are on the road to real wisdom.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by edog11

 

No I can't. That's my point. I can't honestly tell you that ANYGHING is 100% sure since my conscious "mind" is currently unable to deal with infinite knowledge. Maybe the universe will cease to exist if Earth gets blown up, and maybe not. I at least admit that I don't know what "reality" is and that there are a lot of things that I don't "know".

Then you are on the road to real wisdom.

Hahaha... no.

reply to post by Nosred


What I'm supposed to believe it is transitional because you say it is. what was it before it was a muddy fish ?
Sorry I need some of that objective empirical scientific protocol please ? X you handle this one.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Nosred

 

What I'm supposed to believe it is transitional because you say it is. what was it before it was a muddy fish ?
Sorry I need some of that objective empirical scientific protocol please ? X you handle this one.

It's a fish... that walks on land. With its fins. And breathes air.

It is an example of fish evolving into land-dwelling creatures. It's a transitional fossil that you can literally observe with your own eyes, because it's not extinct yet.

Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience. Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively.

en.wikipedia.org...


That video was empirical evidence. Right now you're just sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Lalalala can't hear you lalalala!".

reply to post by squiz


And Michael Behe, who came up with that wonderfully fallacious pseudo scientific nonsense that is irreducible complexity, is a biochemist.

Johnson, just like Behe, is guided by dogma and a desire to prove to themselves that their supernatural beliefs are true. They aren't guided by a desire for truth, no matter what that may be.

I guarantee you that both of them are in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance.

You can;t turn an evolutionist with a video. Evolutionists don't have a head probelm with creation they have a heart problem with it. If you were a Christian you would know this. Jesus and his purpose stuffs the mind, it's not logical. It's all about faith and the heart and being chosen and being the called, you should know this.

While it may be easy to bash creationists, it's not too hard to bash evolutionists who also must collaborate their beliefs with the Big Bang theory which relies on the assumption there was this great and mighty coalescence of Nothing. that under extreme pressure of Nothingness, exploded and expanded into the impossibly vast and immeasurable universe of infinite Somethings. (poetic license on grammar)

The neo-alternate theory is that the universe may have always existed, having no beginning nor end and is in a constant state of death/rebirth.

How does one stake a claim on either of those notions? Is it like the dripping faucet in the bathroom that you learn to live with after countless attempts of failed investigation and repairing? Everything else surrounding the faucet is sound and in good order, but alas that darn dripping; it just is, move on to the tangible stuff?

reply to post by edmc^2


yes it should be taught, because in most schools evoloution is not taught as the completely solid and only explination for the origin of life, it only describes the process in which things change over time. NO part of the evoloutionary theory implies that life began on it's own, through chance of time. People have made that assumption. Even darwin himself never said that life started by chance.

I think the lesson learned here is that Creationism and evoloution not only go hand in hand, but are almost the same thing, for without evoloution you cannot create, and without creation, it's possible evoloution would never have began. So we are back at the chicken and egg argument eh? it would be logical for one to assume that creation comes first because of the nature of the implied idealogy behind the deffinition of the word creation, but truly it is very hard to understand the process.

Oh by the way i personally dont think this is anymore proof of creation than an archeological record is to evoloution.

Great post though

reply to post by Nosred

It is an example of fish evolving into land-dwelling creatures. It's a transitional fossil that you can literally observe with your own eyes, because it's not extinct yet.

According to you.
According to me?

It's a fish... that walks on land. With its fins. And breathes air.

Explained.

Christian Fundamentalists, you gotta love them!!

Whatever, you say brother, whatever you say!! Bill Hicks had it sussed.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


Oh now you're gonna bring out the trash talk. a friggen comedian ? Who's really not that funny ? Typical.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Nosred

 

What I'm supposed to believe it is transitional because you say it is. what was it before it was a muddy fish ?
Sorry I need some of that objective empirical scientific protocol please ? X you handle this one.

You asking for objective empirical scientific protocol is hilarious.

That was an impressive word salad there randy.

You do realize that all organisms are in a perpetual state of transition, right?

Are you still looking for a crock-a-duck?

The terms transitional fossil or transitional organism are terms that creationist have a never ending misconception of no matter how many times it is explained to them. They only demonstrate their ignorance when they try to speak of transitional forms.

I already knew how ignorant you are regarding the subjects of biology and evolution but I now know how intellectually dishonest you are since this has been explained to you in the past.

reply to post by randyvs


In your opinion friend.

FYI, I found him hilarious when I first saw him and continue to do so. Peace.

reply to post by megabytz


Ah !. Now I'm being attacked. Intellectually dishonest ? My good man you haven't the slightest.

Food for thought ? Or just bait ?

cobaltic

In your opinion friend

Can't say you don't have something right can I ?
He sucks.

I love how the first response to the OP has gotten like 6 times as many stars. Just goes to show ya that these sort of tactics don't work.

SCIENCE!!!

Originally posted by Cantmakedisup
I love how the first response to the OP has gotten like 6 times as many stars. Just goes to show ya that these sort of tactics don't work.

SCIENCE!!!

Since when did a discussion forum ever get thought of as tactical ? Oh I know when ecvolution came along.

Well with X being gone there's really nothing intelligent coming from those who oppose and I've had my fun.

Bye !

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
....and what did the Atomic Bomb do? Yeah, thanks for that Science.

Prevent another world war between the US/Britain and the USSR?

Yeah, I'm pretty grateful for that actually. Many of our younger posters wouldn't even be alive today because their parents would have likely been killed in the war before they were conceived. So yeah, thanks Science.

reply to post by edmc^2


Ha Christian realy want to justify there belief, if I remember you guys wanted to destroy science, wanted to kill Galileo and Newton and the last one that actually divide Christianity and science, Charles Darwin. now look at you trying to lie to justify your belief.

If Christian would kill Galileo we human will still believe that we are in the center of the universe. Newton wouldn't never discover gravity and Einstein wouldn't never existed, and Atomic bomb would never been discover of course another alternative world would existed. I'm sure science in medicine would develope. and the world would be 99% Christian, a one world religion.

Just because human don't understand DNA and RNA or the Orgin of Life doesn't mean God (the Judean-Christian God) is the answere

If I had to believe in God then I have to believe in all human Gods ok