Don´t remain tied, Darwin has lied

I pity someone whos god only lives in the margin of science.

Science doesn't work to disprove other science...

Darwin postulated a theroy, and that wouldn't have any aspect of lying

Science proves itself through the virtue of observation...

Why don't you try to prove your god, not disprove evolution.

 

BlackGuard... instead of replying with, what amounts to nothing more than "No Im not- You are!"

Try explaining why Allah is the only true God and according to you is ALSO, at the same time NOT the only true God.

Actually try to explain it instead of just making a 'blanket denial' (as if nothing happened).

Is the Koran the true word of Allah?
Answer the question?

....
Lodui,
Why dont you try to prove your Evolution, not disprove God.
Thanks

 

Because evolution is a plausable explaination and there is no evidence for the existence of your God [insofar as the Christian/Judeo/Islamic/Hindu/Northern & Southern Natives/Polytheistic 'Ancients' God(s)]

 

This is yet another Assertion from you.

I can do that too .. here let me try:

God is a plausable explanation and there is no evidence for the existence of Evolutionism (in so far as a mechanism or theoretical mechanism)

HEy that was easy to assert something!

To bad its not an explanation or even a discussion

BTW.. In the case of Yahweh, there is no 'Ancient' about it.
He is being worshipped more today than ever and has been for Centuries.

Now your 17th Century Faith has seen its better days.
Atheism was all the rage at the turn of the century... 1800!

Well in fairness.. there are still a few of you practicing that old-tyme faith, which did have a sorta 'trendy revival' back in the 70's.

 

Its not my evolution... I have no emotional stake in it like you do your... whatever you believe, arguing with you is futile.

My religious belifs can coincide with evolution or creation... but creation has never offered any proof besides what a book written in the dark ages says.

 

Then tell me Brocktoon, what evidence is there for the Christian/Judeo/Islamic/Hindu/Northern & Southern Natives/Polytheistic 'Ancients' God(s)?

THe Ancients I was refering to were Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians. I should probably point out to you that Yahweh is the basis for a monotheism.

 

I see where you are mistaken.

Creationism simply becomes the rational explanation based on common sense observation of the world around us.
(aka Scientific method)

Evolutionism is based a Creation Myth based on books written by men decades ago and requires 'Faith' DESPITE what natural evidence contradicts it (i.e. Second Law of Thermodynamics.. just for a random example)

Your Book was written back in the days when people also believed flies could 'spontaneously' be created from old food, or mice 'appeared' out of hay bails LOL!
Thats when your Holy Book of Creation Stories was written by one man.

 

Darwin was right.

 

Yahweh was also a God of the 'Ancients' (as you like to say) but of course, you mean to imply he IS a God of 'The Ancients' (insinuating He is not a current God).
(knowing you)

So ya.. There is really no point in calling the Telephone the 'Communication Tool of the 40's!' when it never stopped being a popular thing.

Thanks for clearing up Monotheism for me.
I think it was noticed how confused I was about Monotheism and its good you 'Explained it to me'.
This shows that YOU are explaining my very own premises to ME.
You must be winning!

Since your former question is non-sense, Im prevented from answering it.

I doubt I would suddenly decide to 'answer to you' just because you (once again) decided to 'tell me to answer to you'.

Thumbontico.. do you have any SUBSTANCE.. or do you just like playing 'argument tactics' and 'posturising' or trying to establish 'ground rules' that suit your advantage?

Did you learn all this from your long dead hero Voltaire?
Or how about that hack Russel?

 

Strange topic

Cant read the whole

Always thought and even knew that science tries to explain the unexplicable

So it is normal it succeed into it

The unexplicable is then reduced

(and those who believe in God feel scared? like the Church thru its not really glorious history)

I don't think Religion and Science want to reach the same goal. But both are useful to men

I think that "life" evolves, adapts to survive, exactly as humans do,
maybe not on the same scale (of "time?")

But it still doesn't explain why the life

The how is much about science
The why also, when we know the facts that lead to adaptation

But not the why of life

Is there something in common between every living material thing cab?

 

thumontico:

"Then tell me Brocktoon, what evidence is there for the Christian/Judeo/Islamic/Hindu/Northern & Southern Natives/Polytheistic 'Ancients' God(s)?"

It was not adressed to me
But I thought it could be fun if I say (and for me to have fun):

What if the point of view of all those who believed in something could give you a clue of how that thing is important

I am sure you will have tons of stuff like the number of those who believe does not make the thing true

But ... I think u could think about it little longer
Did I meant to convince?

 

Brocktoon you have managed to interpret the cultural and relgious beliefs of all past civilizations and verily conclude that it was all the work of your one God. That is wonderful but still evades the point of the question and evades a real answer. On an actual respective mythological aspect of a particular culture what evidence is there for their deity or deities? [What evidence is there for Zeus, Hades, Yahweh, etc... or What evidence is there for this collective of Gods apparently known as Yahweh?]

In the future to save myself from future useless reading can you assume I am not attacking you -- your Ego is immensely fragile and quite honestly I do not care, so just leave out all of the sarcastic bullshit, its quite childish, really.


Spiritforces, shouldn't those reasons for the people of the past to believe in some sort of deity be present today? That is if God is still present shouldn't the evidence that they found to be imperative evidence be apparent to me? The problem is that what was unexplicable then can be explained now, what was seen as the act of God was fluxuating meterology or other scientifically explainable phenomena. The only argument there is now is that God must of created us, [He must be getting lazy], however, that arguement is presented on grounds of pseudo science and very often simply erroneous 'facts'.

 

I agree.

Just to be sure, though, maybe we should check to see if Charles Darwin's life's work meets with Brocktoon's approval. If not, then clearly Darwin was wrong. Just ask Brocktoon if you have any lingering doubts.

 

I should probably point out to you that Yahweh is the basis for a monotheism.Posted by thumontico


I am just curious, and ask anyone to answer this.
I have been of the belief that Zarathustra was the first monotheist, and I also know that in ancient Egypt, Akhnaten promoted the worship of one God, Aten, another early example of monotheism.
Is there a definitive 'first' monotheism?

 

Never mind Brocktoon..

Charles Darwins work does NOT meet the approval Evolutionists, Scientists and Researchers today.. and has NOT for many many years.

Natural Selection does not (and can not) account for new genetic information.

Darwinism is gone, deceased, extinct and only taken seriously by psuedo-intellectual internet geeks who havent picked up a Science Journal since 1890.

For those interested in what their modern Evolutionist Master are believing in these days... Look for Punctuated Equilibreum or Hopeful Monsters.
Look for 3-toed Eohippus giving birth (magically) to a Horse.

THAT is what you are to be believing now according to your official storytellers in Evolutionism.

 

this thread is retarded... i hope it burns in hell.!!!

 

Brocktroon.

You really have a thing for evolution..no?
Almost as if it were a threat.

Ironic. As evolutionary theory as schools\centers of 'higher learning' teach it is..To humanity.
No longer applicable. [if it ever was]

Conservative evolutionary theory does not include species that DECIDE
what they will be. We now begin to evolve ourselves..
For what we call better or what we call worse.
[for good and bad are descriptions..not absolutes]

Unless of course..You do not believe there is free will.
In that case. all is determined.
What a waste of our reality that would be..
Just another scripted machine..without variables.
Like a toaster..
Where human love and compassion. grief and hate,,Are not ours.

Are we 'gods toaster' ?

Occam

 

Mui

Which hell ? There are hundreds. All in books.

Occam

 

liar, you hope that hell is a fairy tale. In fact you said you are certain there is no God.

Your post is inconsistent with your previous views, in detail, though consistent in its criticism without any helpful alternative suggestions.

 

I don't claim to have the answers, but for a while I haven't been able to accept that fish got out of the sea, there was a tadpole to frog explanation earlier, but that;s already programmed in it's DNA. The first fish to take the land would have had to get some kinda lungs from natural selection. The first attempt at lungs a fish ever had, could not have processed any air at all. not in one generation, so they would have had no beneficial effect on it's survival, nor would it it help it to spread it's own genetics. For many, many generations fish lungs would have to be pointless, so the normal theory of evolution through survival of the fittest completely fails to explain why the fish even began to get lungs, the adaptations are supposed to spread due to their benefits to the individual animal that has them. It's not supposed to think years in advance, and it would take years, and many pointless generations for lungs to have any use to a fish. Animals definately adapt, but I'm not convinced that they breach the barriers between fish, mammals, reptiles etc. It's not logical, the jumps don't make sense with the natural selection theory.