Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't want proof of any thing. I have the Holy Bible as my proof.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

You said "where is your proof?"
And
"You have been saying that same thing for a year and have yet to prove anything..."

Which is flat out asking me where my proof is and to show it.

I can and will happily show you my 'proof' if you can manage to work out what it was you were asking proof for.

As it stands the conversation has gone like this...

RJH walks up to me "show me proof! you have not shown me proof!"

GF "proof of what?"

RJH "you don't even know what you believe!"

GF "no I just don't know what you want me to prove"

RJH " I don't want you to prove anything"

GF "WTF are you talking to me for then, go away you crazy loon"

Originally posted by googlefudge
You said "where is your proof?"
And
"You have been saying that same thing for a year and have yet to prove anything..."

Which is flat out asking me where my proof is and to show it.

I can and will happily show you my 'proof' if you can manage to work out what it was you were asking proof for.

As it stands the conversation has gone like this.. ...[text shortened]... nything"

GF "WTF are you talking to me for then, go away you crazy loon"

Well, you can not prove that God does not exist and you can prove how life began. You can't prove all life forms evolved from a one single cell organism.
You can't even prove mankind evolved from one of the apes, like a chimpanzee.
So you go away you crazy loon!

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, you can not prove that God does not exist and you can prove how life began. You can't prove all life forms evolved from a one single cell organism.
You can't even prove mankind evolved from one of the apes, like a chimpanzee.
So you go away you crazy loon!

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

you can not prove that God does not exist...

Wrong burden of proof. (as you well know)
You are the one making the claim that a god exists and it is up to you to prove that your claim is correct.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm

However as your particular religion relies on the existence of 'souls/spirit/animating life force' that has been
shown beyond any reasonable doubt not to exist AND your particular version of theism also relies on the
divine inspiration and inerrancy of a particular bronze age work of fiction that has been multiply shown to be
wrong it has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that your particular god and religion is in fact false.

However you are not even close to being reasonable which is why you wont accept this.

and you can prove how life began

I assume that this is a typo and you meant I cannot prove how life began...

Well no I can't and haven't claimed to.

However the fact that I [science] can't prove how life began doesn't mean you get to assert that you know the
answer.
It has been shown conclusively that it's possible for life to form from non-living chemicals given the right conditions.
And while we can't say for certain how it actually happened on the earth in the distant past we can still work out
a set of probable mechanisms by which it probably happened... None of which require a god or intelligence of any kind.

You can't prove all life forms evolved from a one single cell organism.

Again, I never said I could prove such a thing.

And even all life didn't evolve from one single initial organism, if life originated several times around the earth, that
doesn't disprove evolution and mearly modifies common descent. Which btw has Vast and overwhelming support.

You can't even prove mankind evolved from one of the apes, like a chimpanzee.

Wrong, that has been proven and is an established fact.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/

YouTube&list=PLDB23537556D7AADB&index=4&feature=plpp_video

YouTube&list=PLDB23537556D7AADB&index=7&feature=plpp_video

YouTube&list=PLDB23537556D7AADB&index=8&feature=plpp_video

YouTube&list=PLDB23537556D7AADB&index=9&feature=plpp_video

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet life abounds. How do you explain that? Your argument here contradicts the obvious.

[b]I don't believe.....
Fine, you don't believe it. But you are yet to provide a valid argument for your lack of belief. Oddly enough you expect everyone else not to believe it either (for no apparent reason) and have to come up with 'explanations' for why they ...[text shortened]... a new dog breed appears you are forced to assume that God must have preplanned it all.[/b]

Life abounds correct and look how it’s done too, there are niches within the
living community where if something dies another will clean it up many times
before disease and other things creep into the picture. There is quite a
balancing act going on everywhere keeping life going not only within the
community of living creatures, but within each living creature. Yet the
evolutionist believes that isn't really necessary at all for life to abound. They
have to deny that because at some point the things that help life abound were
not here, just as each life forms individuals’ body parts would not had to have
been here either.

All that which makes life stronger, more suited to survive, were also not here at
some point from food supplies, the ability to reproduce, regulate temperature,
ability to handle air, to move, and so on. Yet evolutionists believe, life just
formed into more complex life forms that worked together with other life to
keep the whole system of life alive and growing, in environments that were not
purposely setup to make that happen, it just did.

Yes, I find that all very hard to believe.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, I find that all very hard to believe.

So you say, but your behaviour tells us otherwise. If you have genuine reasons for not believing these things, then why whenever we get into a detailed discussion on it do you twist and turn and dodge at every opportunity? Why can't you admit when you get something wrong (like the door frames for example)?
You said of me that:

I think they cling to it no matter what questions are put to them and will with every question cling to anything that may support their position.

yet the one exhibiting this behaviour is you.
Before we move on to your latest claims regarding 'communities' and the history of life, can you state whether or not you accept that your door analogy demonstrated the exact opposite of what you were claiming?

Now, if I show that your latest claims are equally false, will you be willing to admit to it? Or will you simply try to change the topic again?

Do you find it 'hard to believe' because you simply don't want to believe, or because you haven't been convinced by the evidence? If it is the latter, why are you so reluctant to actually discuss the evidence?

Originally posted by googlefudge

you can not prove that God does not exist...

Wrong burden of proof. (as you well know)
You are the one making the claim that a god exists and it is up to you to prove that your claim is correct.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm

However as your particular religion relies on the existence of 'souls/spirit/anim w.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ&list=PLDB23537556D7AADB&index=9&feature=plpp_video

It has not been shown conclusively that it's possible for life to form from non-living chemicals given the right conditions. It has been shown conclusively that mankind did not evolved from one of the apes, like a chimpanzee.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/10/01/exceptional-humans-did-not-evolve-from-apes/

Scientific Evidence that God is real

YouTube&feature=related

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you say, but your behaviour tells us otherwise. If you have genuine reasons for not believing these things, then why whenever we get into a detailed discussion on it do you twist and turn and dodge at every opportunity? Why can't you admit when you get something wrong (like the door frames for example)?
You said of me that:
[quote] I think they cling ...[text shortened]... evidence? If it is the latter, why are you so reluctant to actually discuss the evidence?

Nothing wrong about the door frame example, you just I guess you never have
had to put one together and frame it so that it works properly. If you had you'd
know that getting it wrong is very easy, and like all things there are right ways
to do things and wrong. With many things in living systems, you get it wrong
that is all she wrote you have death or something that will die. You see what
you want to see, and accuse others of the very thing you do.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Nothing wrong about the door frame example, you just I guess you never have
had to put one together and frame it so that it works properly. If you had you'd
know that getting it wrong is very easy, and like all things there are right ways
to do things and wrong. With many things in living systems, you get it wrong
that is all she wrote you have death or ...[text shortened]... hat will die. You see what
you want to see, and accuse others of the very thing you do.
Kelly

It has been amply demonstrated to you that there are many ways to get a door frame right (and yes we have testimony from people who have done house doors, and I have done cupboard doors). Sure, getting it wrong is easy too. But what you haven't demonstrated is what the probability is of getting it wrong is compared to getting it right. Your implication in your claim is that it is vastly more probable that it will be wrong and that in the case of life, this should result in instant death for all life forms. But not only have you not demonstrated this probability imbalance but you are also contradicted by the ample evidence that life is doing just fine.
So, can you explain in more detail what you are actually trying to claim and show how you think the numbers contradict evolution but do not contradict the current existence of living things (that seem to be doing rather well).

Originally posted by twhitehead
It has been amply demonstrated to you that there are many ways to get a door frame right (and yes we have testimony from people who have done house doors, and I have done cupboard doors). Sure, getting it wrong is easy too. But what you haven't demonstrated is what the probability is of getting it wrong is compared to getting it right. Your implication in ...[text shortened]... t do not contradict the current existence of living things (that seem to be doing rather well).

Please, follow the statement...either you get it right or you don't....I can use
little words if you want me to. The door either works or it doesn't, that is very
simple even you should grasp that! The fact that you can do it many ways only
says that with each different way presents a different set of right and wrong
answers. Wrong answers with living systems don't live long, and when you
have a very limited number of living systems as you would in the views of
evolution's beginning, only flawless execution could mean life would or could
continue let alone progress. That again in environments that were not
designed to allow for such things, you believe in a fairy tale in my opinion, but
you have the brass to call it science.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Please, follow the statement...either you get it right or you don't....I can use
little words if you want me to. The door either works or it doesn't, that is very
simple even you should grasp that! The fact that you can do it many ways only
says that with each different way presents a different set of right and wrong
answers. Wrong answers with living s ...[text shortened]... ou believe in a fairy tale in my opinion, but
you have the brass to call it science.
Kelly

...very limited number of living systems as you would in the views of
evolution's beginning, only flawless execution could mean life would or could
continue let alone progress.

Ahh, no this doesn't follow.

What matters is how many POSSIBLE ways there are of getting it 'right'.
And getting it right enough to reproduce is all that matters.
How much pain and suffering you have while doing it is irrelevant to evolution.

There are VASTLY more ways of getting 'right' simple single cell organisms than there
are of getting right more complex ones.

The sheer number and diversity of single cell organisms is testimony to that.

And those life forms can live in a huge range of environments many of which we would
consider incredibly toxic or otherwise lethal.

They can survive in extreme cold, heat, acidity, pressure (Both high and low) and in the
presence of chemicals we would find unbelievably toxic and in the absence of other chemicals
we consider vital to exist.

Given the range and diversity of conditions in which simple life can survive, and the sheer
vastness of the universe, both in terms of size and age, the likelihood of finding somewhere
which has conditions within those ranges is not even remotely surprising.



Science works on evidence and reason.

And goes wherever evidence and reason point.

You still evidently fail to understand evolution and also the evidence for it.

So here again are a couple of places to go where you can alleviate yourself of that ignorance.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_toc_01

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

Originally posted by KellyJay
Please, follow the statement...either you get it right or you don't....I can use
little words if you want me to. The door either works or it doesn't, that is very
simple even you should grasp that!

I do grasp it. The problem is that on its own its pretty meaningless. Its the implications that you don't say that really matter, and you don't say them because you know you are wrong.

The fact that you can do it many ways only says that with each different way presents a different set of right and wrong answers. Wrong answers with living systems don't live long, and when you have a very limited number of living systems as you would in the views of evolution's beginning, only flawless execution could mean life would or could
continue let alone progress.
Finally, you actually put it in words. So, explain to us where you get the idea that there were a limited number of living systems and that flawless execution was required. Initially I thought the door analogy was supposed to demonstrate that but you admit that it does no such thing. So what are you basing this claim on?

That again in environments that were not designed to allow for such things, you believe in a fairy tale in my opinion, but you have the brass to call it science.
Kelly
Well then you should have no problem discussing it in detail. So far you are being extremely vague and hinting at things but not actually wanting to come out and say them. You seem to be saying that there were x number of living systems (a rather poorly defined term) and that there was only one possible route forward (for which flawless execution was required). So explain to us how you know this.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do grasp it. The problem is that on its own its pretty meaningless. Its the implications that you don't say that really matter, and you don't say them because you know you are wrong.

[b]The fact that you can do it many ways only says that with each different way presents a different set of right and wrong answers. Wrong answers with living systems do ute forward (for which flawless execution was required). So explain to us how you know this.

[/b]I do not know I'm wrong I'm quite content knowing I'm right. There is no way
the things that evolution is being credited for could happen under the conditions
that it has been suggested. Just as I believe God can create life and give us
the freedom to make our own choices I do not believe nothing can cause all
things to appear and with no direction or purpose have everything over time
become more functionally complex so that they work with other things that are
also supposed to be getting more functionally complex over time till we this
grand amount of life around that evolutionist want to give credit to nothing
for.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do grasp it. The problem is that on its own its pretty meaningless. Its the implications that you don't say that really matter, and you don't say them because you know you are wrong.

[b]The fact that you can do it many ways only says that with each different way presents a different set of right and wrong answers. Wrong answers with living systems do ute forward (for which flawless execution was required). So explain to us how you know this.

"Finally, you actually put it in words. So, explain to us where you get the idea that there were a limited number of living systems and that flawless execution was required."

[/b]If life started from non-living material it had to begin somewhere.
If life started from non-living material it would have been in limited numbers.
If life started from non-living material it would have been limited in its
tolerances to temperature, food supplies, and so on. If life started from
non-living material if it at any point lost anything it needed it would die off.
If life started from non-living material any change that wasn't giving it not only
the ability to go on but to become more adaptive to the enviroment would have
caused it to die off.

Even if life started with trillions for numbers, if they were all in a pond would all
die off if something were to happen to the pond.
The ways to go wrong or bad far outnumber the ways to maintain or improve.
With a limited number of life to work with even getting off the ground would not
mean it could maintain and improve over time.
Remember the environment is ever changing life does does not always do well
in extremes and if you have something that does not have much in the way of
immunities or tolerance, say good bye life if a change happens that it cannot
handle.

You really have to invent a fairy tale to call that possible.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Finally, you actually put it in words. So, explain to us where you get the idea that there were a limited number of living systems and that flawless execution was required."

If life started from non-living material it had to begin somewhere.
If life started from non-living material it would have been in limited numbers.
If life started from non-li ...[text shortened]... at it cannot
handle.

You really have to invent a fairy tale to call that possible.
Kelly[/b]

That is just what was done with the theory of evolution -- the fairy tale for grownups -- at least for the Athest grownups, right?

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is just what was done with the theory of evolution -- the fairy tale for grownups -- at least for the Athest grownups, right?

That is just giving the theory the (it could have started that way) as a give me,
and I don't think that is true either.
Kelly