Originally posted by humy
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=814372

http://www.onrpg.com/boards/130715.html

and, best of all:

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/religion/artikel.php?ID=197908

“..The following steps address this
question as well as other relevant details that describe how the first living cells
formed according to the EVIDENCE gathered so far. ...”(my emphasis)

I'll check it out...

Originally posted by galveston75
I totally agre with you that we all want to learn and we have that natural desire to learn. How is it made, how does it work, why are we here, what's over the next hill? Yes we all want answers but that does not mean we will ever know it all does it? Is it possible that only God knows certian things, things we will never comprehend? And that can apply to ...[text shortened]... ven and that is something that as time goes by, evolution is being more and more disproved.

There are things we don't know and there MAY be things we can never know but that is no excuse for
claiming that god did it.

God doesn't explain anything (I will explain why if you want and missed my previous explanations of this)
To say 'god did it' is to stop asking questions and to give up.

People used to say god did it about just about everything.

But some people tried actually trying to find out how things worked, to ask questions and do experiments,
and they found out how the vast majority of those things that used to be attributed to god actually do work
and now we don't think god does those things because we did science and discovered things.

There may be some questions to which we will never find the answer but that doesn't mean that we ever
stop looking.

Saying god did it is giving up. It's also utterly useless as an explanation so we don't gain anything from saying it.

So we don't ever do that.
If we don't know the answer we say, "we don't know, but we are still looking".
That is what science is about.


I know you are bombarded with lies from your churches but Evolutionary theory is not getting at all disproved.
In fact it is impossible to disprove evolution at this point (watch the PZ lecture I linked earlier for why).
Evolution will and can be no more disproven than the existence of gravity.
And we can and do know many things about what the early earth was like and what things could and did form
on it because the laws of physics now were the laws of physics then.
We can and do do experiments now and theoretical work now that tells us a great deal about what the earth was
like then

we can also look at other objects in the solar system left over from that time and do experiments and tests on them.

This is totally the purview of science, and it's a fantastic and fascinating area of study.
Open your mind and go exploring because its well worth it.

It's far more interesting and useful than the nonsense in your holy book.

Originally posted by humy
as I just siad; "it is probabilistic rather than 'proof'.


http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=814372

http://www.onrpg.com/boards/130715.html

and, best of all:

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/religion/artikel.php?ID=197908

“..The following steps address this
question as well as other relevant details that describe how the first living ...[text shortened]... r. ...”(my emphasis)

we have the physical evidence on our side. What evidence do you have?

Well theres a problem. They are breaking the rules of facts.
I found these terms in the first few paragraphs:

We infer,
What may have happened,
Similar,
What we don't know yet,
They may figure it out but don't know now,
Some copies not 100% correct,
Essentually, ( or not actually)
This study is still in it's infancy,
Still have a lot to learn,

Do I have to print more?

I want proof or else it's not fact.

Originally posted by googlefudge
There are things we don't know and there MAY be things we can never know but that is no excuse for
claiming that god did it.

God doesn't explain anything (I will explain why if you want and missed my previous explanations of this)
To say 'god did it' is to stop asking questions and to give up.

People used to say god did it about just about every ...[text shortened]... it.

It's far more interesting and useful than the nonsense in your holy book.

God doesn't explain anything (I will explain why if you want and missed my previous explanations of this)
To say 'god did it' is to stop asking questions and to give up.

Give up? Who said to give up on anything? Not me as I want to learn all I can, but I want to learn truth and the Bible has never once lied about anything and tells us exactly what God sees fit at this time.

Originally posted by galveston75
God doesn't explain anything (I will explain why if you want and missed my previous explanations of this)
To say 'god did it' is to stop asking questions and to give up.

Give up? Who said to give up on anything? Not me as I want to learn all I can, but I want to learn truth and the Bible has never once lied about anything and tells us exactly what God sees fit at this time.

So if I show one thing in the bible to be wrong I disprove your faith?


Saying god did it is absolutely giving up.
You are asserting a cause with absolutely no evidence or reason to do so.
You are saying 'hey I have the answer to this question, god did it'.
Instead you should say, 'I don't know the answer lets find out'.

Saying god did it is intended to shut down debate and stamp out inquiry.

Would you like me to explain why "god did it" doesn't explain anything?

Originally posted by galveston75
Well theres a problem. They are breaking the rules of facts.
I found these terms in the first few paragraphs:

We infer,
What may have happened,
Similar,
What we don't know yet,
They may figure it out but don't know now,
Some copies not 100% correct,
Essentually, ( or not actually)
This study is still in it's infancy,
Still have a lot to learn,

Do I have to print more?

I want proof or else it's not fact.

Don't you read my posts?

For the THIRD time, I repeat:

"it is probabilistic rather than 'proof'. “

that is how science often (but not usually) has to work.
I am NOT claiming absolute proof but rather science has given us very powerful evidence indeed of how it probably happened given all the current physical evidence.
but EVEN if it didn't happen that way, that would just mean it happened in some other physical way -no need for stupid supersicion.

now I have given some references to (physical) evidence so what is your counter-evidence?

Originally posted by galveston75
God doesn't explain anything (I will explain why if you want and missed my previous explanations of this)
To say 'god did it' is to stop asking questions and to give up.

Give up? Who said to give up on anything? Not me as I want to learn all I can, but I want to learn truth and the Bible has never once lied about anything and tells us exactly what God sees fit at this time.

So it is not a lie that Jesus was resurrected, it is not a lie that humans started out with just two people. Those are pretty big ones right there.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I generalised to Christianity in general and more broadly to theism in general.

You only believe in god singular (as I understand it) but I talked about a lack of evidence
for god or gods.

Actually there is far less evidence for the existence of JC than Alexander the Great, but also
AtG is not postulated to be supernatural.
I also don't have a ...[text shortened]... ignorant and idiotic to suggest otherwise.
But then I wouldn't expect anything else from you.

what a pure zoob, you had no idea that different denominations profess different
teaching and simply make broad and inaccurate generalisation on that basis and when
called out for it start to back peddle like your in a self propelled paddle boat about to
crash over a waterfall, it is to laugh! You talk more bilge than a bilge rat full of bilge
water on a sinking ship near Bilgeham on bilge Sunday! seriously dude, you gotta turn
up the tone or you'll be smokin like a Loch Fyne kipper every time.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what a pure zoob, you had no idea that different denominations profess different
teaching and simply make broad and inaccurate generalisation on that basis and when
called out for it start to back peddle like your in a self propelled paddle boat about to
crash over a waterfall, it is to laugh! You talk more bilge than a bilge rat full of bilge ...[text shortened]... usly dude, you gotta turn
up the tone or you'll be smokin like a Loch Fyne kipper every time.

Of course I know that none of you theists can agree on anything and I have pointed it out many times.

I generalised because I don't believe in any of your unsubstantiated claims and am not
about to learn every single variant of your bat s**t crazy beliefs just for the purpose
of tailoring my arguments to every specific nuance of your beliefs.

I almost always generalise or try to to make my arguments apply not just to Christianity or
monotheism but to all religions and god concepts.

And I have made that clear many times before as well.

I am not back-peddling, My arguments stand, your religion and beliefs are blind faith based entirely
on unobserved phenomena.
However I prefer to make my arguments more broadly applicable than to just a tiny and irrelevant
Christian sect that even other Christians laugh at.

Particularly when you are beyond all reason and are an A**eh**e to boot.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If you remove a word that could constitute a reduction in information content.

You may be reducing the overall information content, but you have also created something new. You have created new information content.

If I take the sentence "the fat flabby cat" and remove either fat or flabby I don't change the meaning
or information content of the sentence because fat and flabby are redundant.
I dispute that. There are many ways to measure the information content of the sentence. Suppose we were counting letters. The original sentence has 15 letters. Remove 'fat' and it has 12. That information has changed. The new '12' is new information.
There is a big difference between intended information and actual information. The problem with DNA, is that mutations can lead to new genes that were not intended. They just happen. So even a deleterious mutation can result in a useful gene that did not exist before and is thus new information.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Of course I know that none of you theists can agree on anything and I have pointed it out many times.

I generalised because I don't believe in any of your unsubstantiated claims and am not
about to learn every single variant of your bat s**t crazy beliefs just for the purpose
of tailoring my arguments to every specific nuance of your beliefs.

I ...[text shortened]... hristians laugh at.

Particularly when you are beyond all reason and are an A**eh**e to boot.

laugh at?? almost eight million active adherents and proclaimers of a beautiful message
and demonstrating no sign of slowing up, by the time the day is over there will be
approximately 1000 new and happy witnesses of the most high God, read it and weep
googly woogly, you cant touch this! da da da da, cant touch this! da da da da! cant
touch this.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
laugh at?? almost eight million active adherents and proclaimers of a beautiful message
and demonstrating no sign of slowing up, by the time the day is over there will be
approximately 1000 new and happy witnesses of the most high God, read it and weep
googly woogly, you cant touch this! da da da da, cant touch this! da da da da! cant
touch this.

atheism 1.1 billion and growing.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
laugh at?? almost eight million active adherents and proclaimers of a beautiful message
and demonstrating no sign of slowing up, by the time the day is over there will be
approximately 1000 new and happy witnesses of the most high God, read it and weep
googly woogly, you cant touch this! da da da da, cant touch this! da da da da! cant
touch this.

You still get laughed at.

And at that rate of growth, it will take more than 2000 years to catch up with the Roman Catholics. They get more members than that per day simply by having children.

Originally posted by galveston75
God doesn't explain anything (I will explain why if you want and missed my previous explanations of this)
To say 'god did it' is to stop asking questions and to give up.

Give up? Who said to give up on anything? Not me as I want to learn all I can, but I want to learn truth and the Bible has never once lied about anything and tells us exactly what God sees fit at this time.

“...and the Bible has never once lied about anything ...”

Here is a huge list of logical contradictions in the Bible:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

here is just a tiny sample of logical contradictions in the Bible mentioned on that site:

The Order of Creation
Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.
Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.
Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.
Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.
....
....
....
...


So this is the proof that the Bible does lie!!!!


"...I want to learn all I can, but I want to learn truth..."

I have just proven that the Bible doesn't always tell the truth as you believed.
So, if you really want to "learn truth" as you say, would you now not assume everything the Bible says is the truth and at the very least consider the alternative possibility that the best way to judge the truth is through reason and evidence?

Originally posted by humy
Don't you read my posts?

For the THIRD time, I repeat:

"it is probabilistic rather than 'proof'. “

that is how science often (but not usually) has to work.
I am NOT claiming absolute proof but rather science has given us very powerful evidence indeed of how it probably happened given all the current physical evidence.
but EVEN if it didn't happen th ...[text shortened]...
now I have given some references to (physical) evidence so what is your counter-evidence?

soory, misprint:


"-no need for stupid supersicion. "

should have been

"-no need for stupid superstition. "

don't know how I managed that; "supersicion" isn't even a word.