Why has a bee's sting evolved to be barbed?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
I'm not sure I follow that - are you saying that your belief that God is threatened by evolution is the reason that evolution does not exist?

Here's my take on it, people try to prove God doesn't exist but then how can they explain creation? Simple they think of another solution evolution, which in no case in history has ever been proved, no can, so not only does 1. it doesn't exist nor can but 2. it's the theory that God neither exists nor has to for anything else to exist (namely they don't Believe in Chistiananity)

Originally posted by daniel58
Here's my take on it, people try to prove God doesn't exist but then how can they explain creation? Simple they think of another solution evolution, which in no case in history has ever been proved, no can, so not only does 1. it doesn't exist nor can but 2. it's the theory that God neither exists nor has to for anything else to exist (namely they don't Believe in Chistiananity)

How on earth can anybody be expected to understand that? It doesn't make any sense.

It's hardly surprising you don't understand evolution when you don't even understand the English language.

Originally posted by daniel58
Here's my take on it, people try to prove God doesn't exist but then how can they explain creation? Simple they think of another solution evolution, which in no case in history has ever been proved, no can, so not only does 1. it doesn't exist nor can but 2. it's the theory that God neither exists nor has to for anything else to exist (namely they don't Believe in Chistiananity)

Again, please? This time coherently, if you would.

Originally posted by Badwater
Again, please? This time coherently, if you would.

No thanks🙂😀😉😛😕😠😳🙁:'(😞😏😵😲😴

Originally posted by daniel58
Here's my take on it, people try to prove God doesn't exist but then how can they explain creation? Simple they think of another solution evolution, which in no case in history has ever been proved, no can, so not only does 1. it doesn't exist nor can but 2. it's the theory that God neither exists nor has to for anything else to exist (namely they don't Believe in Chistiananity)

I sort of get what you're saying - despite the confused language - but you're mistaken. Evolution has a huge variety of proof. The notion of the supernatural has no proof. Oh, I know you can claim the bible and the huge mass of religious people, but none of these things actually demonstrate the existence of a supernatural entity. No one ever has demonstrated this. You may wish with all your heart to believe otherwise, but wishing doesn't make for credible explanations.
How can we explain creation you ask?
Firstly let's clarify - evolution is not a theory about creation. It simply aims to explain the diversity of life on Earth. That's it. It doesn't even require any knowledge of how life may have appeared - certainly Darwin had no knowledge of this. Of course, this is not satisfactory to many people - any explanation of the diversity of life sort of needs to be able to cope with the beginnings of life.
And the answer? There are some explanations heading towards useful explanations,but nothing definitive.
This is not a problem for a scientific viewpoint - explanations don't all come at once, divinely appearing in a burning bush or broken tablets or whatever. Explanations develop over time.
Do we know how life formed on Earth? No.
Do we know how the universe began, if it did indeed begin? No.
Lack of explanations is not a problem. They'll come, in time.
Resorting to a 'god did it' explanation is of no use i there is no proof.
I'm still waiting for proof on that score.

Originally posted by amannion
I sort of get what you're saying - despite the confused language - but you're mistaken. Evolution has a huge variety of proof. The notion of the supernatural has no proof. Oh, I know you can claim the bible and the huge mass of religious people, but none of these things actually demonstrate the existence of a supernatural entity. No one ever has demonstrate ...[text shortened]... anation is of no use i there is no proof.
I'm still waiting for proof on that score.

"Oh, I know you can claim the bible and the huge mass of religious people, but none of these things actually demonstrate the existence of a supernatural entity."

True. None of that proves God exists.

Everything that exists is proof for a creator. The universe didn't just materialise out of thin air. It was created. The proof for a creator is in creation. It's that simple.

Despite the volumes of information about evolution I see no real evidence that it exists.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Oh, I know you can claim the bible and the huge mass of religious people, but none of these things actually demonstrate the existence of a supernatural entity."

True. None of that proves God exists.

Everything that exists is proof for a creator. The universe didn't just materialise out of thin air. It was created. The proof for a creator is in ...[text shortened]...

Despite the volumes of information about evolution I see no real evidence that it exists.[/b]

And the creator's existence is evidence for the creator's creator...etc.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
And the creator's existence is evidence for the creator's creator...etc.

Can't go back further than one creator. Don't you know that?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Oh, I know you can claim the bible and the huge mass of religious people, but none of these things actually demonstrate the existence of a supernatural entity."

True. None of that proves God exists.

Everything that exists is proof for a creator. The universe didn't just materialise out of thin air. It was created. The proof for a creator is in ...[text shortened]...

Despite the volumes of information about evolution I see no real evidence that it exists.[/b]

No it's not that simple. That's like saying I speak English because of hamburgers - there's absolutely no logic to the argument.

When are you anti-evolutionists going to get over yourselves?
Your statement is a classic version - I see no real evidence that it exists.
What you really mean, is that for some reason you don't believe it to be true and so any evidence that others will show me, I will deny.
It's classic conspiracy theory reasoning actually - I don't believe anyone ever walked on the Moon, so despite any evidence you demonstrate that disavows me of this position, I will continue to hold it.

The real question for me is, what is it about evolution - or maybe the implications of evolution - that causes you to not want it to be true? Is your faith in god so marginal that a scientific explanatory model would cause it to come crashing down?

Originally posted by josephw
Can't go back further than one creator. Don't you know that?

Why?

Originally posted by amannion
No it's not that simple. That's like saying I speak English because of hamburgers - there's absolutely no logic to the argument.

When are you anti-evolutionists going to get over yourselves?
Your statement is a classic version - I see no real evidence that it exists.
What you really mean, is that for some reason you don't believe it to be true and so a ...[text shortened]... god so marginal that a scientific explanatory model would cause it to come crashing down?

You can see why we don't have the same mind on this don't you?

What difference does it make whether or not one knows or believes in evolution? It doesn't matter does it?

But if in fact life was created by a creator, it does matter.


And by the way, I got over myself when the Spirit of God took up residence in me a long time ago.

Originally posted by josephw
You can see why we don't have the same mind on this don't you?

What difference does it make whether or not one knows or believes in evolution? It doesn't matter does it?

But if in fact life was created by a creator, it does matter.


And by the way, I got over myself when the Spirit of God took up residence in me a long time ago.

That's great that you think you've been possessed, but it still doesn't negate the basic flaw in your position. You reject a scientific principle because you don't like it.
Why not reject gravity or the law of inertia or the heliocentric model of the solar system on the same grounds?

Originally posted by daniel58
No thanks🙂😀😉😛😕😠😳🙁:'(😞😏😵😲😴

Saca Tipi Sagus Da Seca

There, bright boy, translate that.

Originally posted by josephw
Everything that exists is proof for a creator. The universe didn't just materialise out of thin air. It was created. The proof for a creator is in creation. It's that simple.

If its so simple, why do you base your 'proof' on an unfounded assumption?
You simply claim "The universe didn't just materialise out of thin air." but give no evidence either way. You simply state it as fact.
Then you make the claim "It was created." which appears to be a conclusion based on the prior claim. However it is not a valid conclusion as 'creation out of thin air' or 'creation' are not the only possibilities. If it is not a conclusion based on the prior claim then it must be another claim - again without any evidence. And it is a claim that amounts to the existence of a creator - which is what you are supposedly proving.

Why do so many theists feel the need to 'prove' their position even when they have to invent stuff or create false proofs in order to do so?

Originally posted by josephw
Everything that exists is proof for a creator. The universe didn't just materialise out of thin air. It was created. The proof for a creator is in creation. It's that simple.

Who created the creator?

If everything has to have a creator, and you see this as a proof that there is a creator, then because of that the creator exists, he also has a creator.

If you see something weird in this, then your proof is not valid. If you agree with me, then your god is just an intermediary, nothing more.

Who is the creator of the creator? And in turn, who is *his* creator?