The dating is flawed. Its science.:laugh:sleeper;1150107 wrote:No evidence of macro evolution. LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_neanderthalensis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_antecessor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis
Keep that head in the sand OSH.
Here we disagree greatly.OSH;1150101 wrote:I agree wholeheartedly. Although, I will drink a water, lemonade, or cranberry...
I usually do not talk these sort of topics on a message board, but since you (and a couple others) can carry on a conversation/dialogue, it was worth staying around because it is fun. It's educational. And thanks to the "Ignore User" feature, I can enjoy this discussion.
People believe in all sorts of things. People change their minds all the time. I don't understand how you cannot control what you believe in. It's a choice.
People choose to believe in Muhammad's sayings. People choose to believe in what Joseph Smith envisioned. People come out of those faiths and choose to believe in other things as well. Why couldn't I choose not to believe...if there were more evidence on the contrary?
You have no idea what I believe in terms of this "gap tactic." I have said all along, I don't care for dating the earth. I don't care what science has to say in terms of how this world came to fruition...because it'll just change next week, month, year, or whenever. There'll be a new "flavor of the week" in terms of scientific discovery. Everyone will point to it as "fact" until MORE facts come out. But, there's no "proof" of humans evolving from ANYTHING. There's really not much fossil "proof" of any other transition in a species (especially to another "species").
It is highly unlikely, even more highly unlikely than a Creator, that primordial ooze has created ALL the species we have on earth. Yes, there are some that weren't "created" but were brought about through reproduction. But, primordial ooze that were able to differentiate itself to create humans, cats, dogs, cows, sharks, birds, dinosaurs, etc. -- whenever it happened and however long it took to happen -- takes just as much belief as any religion does. I know the argument is never supposed to go to: "how come we don't see it now?" But, I am going to ask...how come we don't see this evolution of something being created out of an ooze or an amoeba? Why can't we see transitional species at work now? I know, I know, it happens over "millions of billions of thousands of years." But, there should be some evidence of some sort of evolution occurring right now -- unlike the evolution of humans to adapt to its surroundings (like adapting to technology).
I do wish to use logic. Logic dictates that your god existing is highly unlikely. Unfortunately, your side disregards logic when convenient and wants the other side to only use logic.Con_Alma;1149825 wrote:I any not creating any rules. I am telling you if it is logic you wish to use, you might consider following the rules of logic.
If you want to use logic you might follow Russell's rule of incompleteness. If you don't you aren't being logical. I have already claimed that it is not logic that determines my belief. Are you not using logic now either?
lol. Yeah all of those should be edited to say "6000 years ago" because the Bible is factual.Automatik;1150119 wrote:The dating is flawed. Its science.:laugh:
This is why many on here have chosen to ignore you.sleeper;1150141 wrote:I do wish to use logic. Logic dictates that your god existing is highly unlikely. Unfortunately, your side disregards logic when convenient and wants the other side to only use logic.Faith is a cop out. Faith is irrational. Faith is what your entire life is based on. Enjoy!
Many people also live by "ignorance is bliss".rmolin73;1150143 wrote:This is why many on here have chosen to ignore you.
:rolleyes:Skyhook79;1149821 wrote:You don't go to Church, how do you know what they are teaching? I would also ask for a link to a sermon that says atheists are responsible for all the bad on the earth but I know you don't have one.
Interesting you bring up morality. Morality doesn't exist because of God, if anything, morality exists because there is no god. If there is a god, he is the ultimate judge, and we would not need mortal punishments.pmoney25;1149872 wrote:Iwp- Do you believe in absolute morality or do you believe society/cultures create morals? How would you say absolute morality exists witbout God. Dont confuse that with me saying people cannot act moral while not believing in God, cause they can.. But if you dont bieve then why believe in morality when it is all relative to society at the time?
Quick disclosure, I dont believe christianity created nor holds morals exclusive. Just curious what you think.
You should chalk it up to your own lack of intelligence and lack of reasoning skills. Unlike other atheist in this thread I have yet to actually see a well thought out and insightful post from you. Mainly sarcasm and weak insults, usually the defense of a person who is weak minded.sleeper;1150153 wrote:Interesting you bring up morality. Morality doesn't exist because of God, if anything, morality exists because there is no god. If there is a god, he is the ultimate judge, and we would not need mortal punishments.
I'll go ahead and chalk this up to another logical loophole and hypocritical action championed by believers.
reps, even though 95% of the posters on this thread will have no idea what it meanspmoney25;1150187 wrote:Morality can be nothing more than relative to current society without a source for absolute morality.
Very, very intelligent post pmoney.pmoney25;1150187 wrote:You should chalk it up to your own lack of intelligence and lack of reasoning skills. Unlike other atheist in this thread I have yet to actually see a well thought out and insightful post from you. Mainly sarcasm and weak insults, usually the defense of a person who is weak minded.
As for your actual point. Mortal punishment needs to exist to keep society intact. Even if God is the ultimate judge those that do not believe would not think so and whatever they want without punishment.
Morality can be nothing more than relative to current society without a source for absolute morality.
So is your conclusion then that there is no good or bad since it's all relative to societal norms if we assume there isn't a god?pmoney25;1150187 wrote:You should chalk it up to your own lack of intelligence and lack of reasoning skills. Unlike other atheist in this thread I have yet to actually see a well thought out and insightful post from you. Mainly sarcasm and weak insults, usually the defense of a person who is weak minded.
As for your actual point. Mortal punishment needs to exist to keep society intact. Even if God is the ultimate judge those that do not believe would not think so and whatever they want without punishment.
Morality can be nothing more than relative to current society without a source for absolute morality.
So if you, as a believer, believe god is the ultimate judge, then you are against laws and punishment on Earth.pmoney25;1150187 wrote:You should chalk it up to your own lack of intelligence and lack of reasoning skills. Unlike other atheist in this thread I have yet to actually see a well thought out and insightful post from you. Mainly sarcasm and weak insults, usually the defense of a person who is weak minded.
As for your actual point. Mortal punishment needs to exist to keep society intact. Even if God is the ultimate judge those that do not believe would not think so and whatever they want without punishment.
Morality can be nothing more than relative to current society without a source for absolute morality.
enigmaax;1149664 wrote:This makes god sound like a butt hurt egomaniac.
Actually the Bible tells believers to follow the law of the land as long as it doesn't cause us to sin against God. Believers are also not to bring lawsuits against other believers and we are not to take revenge for being wronged but leave it for God to handle it for us.sleeper;1150269 wrote:So if you, as a believer, believe god is the ultimate judge, then you are against laws and punishment on Earth.
If there's anything I'm thankful for, its moronic thought like this is trending downward.
Again you really have no idea what I believe, I am not against laws and punishment on earth.sleeper;1150269 wrote:So if you, as a believer, believe god is the ultimate judge, then you are against laws and punishment on Earth.
If there's anything I'm thankful for, its moronic thought like this is trending downward.
I think we have disagreed on a lot on this topic.I Wear Pants;1150130 wrote:Here we disagree greatly.
I feel an unlikely simple explanation is better than an unlikely complex one. A being or system or however you want to consider the Christian god would undoubtedly be complex which raises more questions about how it came to be.
We do see transitional species and evolution. I believe I posted a while back a study they did where they took flies and placed them into a dark room for 57 years (1400 generations). These flies have changed genetically. The dark flies now reproduce better in dark than light and have various other features that are adapted for living in the dark.
It happens. This sort of thing happens there's no getting around it.
Though you aren't exactly saying it simply because something may be unlikely or we don't know something in no way means "god did it" is a more viable answer.
Edit: And you "not caring" about the age of the earth is really convenient for you to be able to not believe evolution and many other things.
Woohoo! Do it...you won't regret it.pmoney25;1150304 wrote:Again you really have no idea what I believe, I am not against laws and punishment on earth.
Since you cannot add anything worthwhile to the discussion, I will refrain from replying to anymore of your intelligent and insightful posts.
Probably for the best. It's impossible to have the kind of "debate" in which you seek in which evidence, logic, and reason back your entire belief system into a corner and call it what it truly is. When this happens, you will simply lash out with the "faith" cop out, defrauding the entire debate instead of changing under the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.pmoney25;1150304 wrote:Again you really have no idea what I believe, I am not against laws and punishment on earth.
Since you cannot add anything worthwhile to the discussion, I will refrain from replying to anymore of your intelligent and insightful posts.
I believe people can be good or evil if there is no God. The difference is what is considered evil or good now may not always be based on how the human species. For example in 500 years it may be common to not let anyone live past 60 because they drain resources from the rest. Now that is obviously evil but in the future it may be considered moral to not let people live long lives.I Wear Pants;1150230 wrote:So is your conclusion then that there is no good or bad since it's all relative to societal norms if we assume there isn't a god?
Because I disagree with that.
We can go ahead and chalk that to up another biblical contradiction. Something the bible is no stranger to.Skyhook79;1150291 wrote:Actually the Bible tells believers to follow the law of the land as long as it doesn't cause us to sin against God. Believers are also not to bring lawsuits against other believers and we are not to take revenge for being wronged but leave it for God to handle it for us.
I find your insistence on making it known that a random user on a random internet forum is on your ignore list hilarious. Hopefully this is not the proudest accomplishment in your life.OSH;1150312 wrote:Woohoo! Do it...you won't regret it.
Might as well "Ignore User" as well, makes things a lot easier on this forum.
The scientific consensus is about 4.54 billion years. There won't be much variation from this consensus, but even if there is a scientist who comes along 30 years from now and discovers the Earth is 4.3 billion years old, how can that be anything other than a good thing? That's the great thing about science, if its wrong, they will adjust. It seems you are against getting things right and would rather rely on a book with no scientific basis that never changes even though its wrong and has been proven to be wrong.OSH;1150310 wrote: Don't tell me what my "not caring about the age of the earth" means. I know what it means. It means we'll never know! It means I am not caught up on such a thing. It's something that is beyond our control and calculations. There is no one to confirm or deny the age. Without that, we'll never know. So, why even bother? Why bother arguing about the age of the earth? It gets nowhere. There have been so many different theories by scientists on their dating of the earth's age. They are stretched from 20 million years old to 4.52 billion years old. That's ludicrous to think that science is actually going to figure it out. Next year, it'll be different. But, oh well, at least they have it down to plus/minus 500 million years in age -- because that is real credible. And, all along, people have believed what science has told them about the age of the earth...and it is acceptable. This year 20 million years old. Next year 80 million years old. The year after...200 million years old. So on and so forth. That's perfectly fine because "science is figuring it out." Science just becomes more and more advanced, that's why the dating is getting more and more accurate. Hogwash.
I'm assuming it would be the people who believe that a supernatural being impregnated a virgin in order to sacrifice himself, to himself, in order to save them from the sin he condemned them to.OSH;1150310 wrote:I think we have disagreed on a lot on this topic.
So, we can get flies to change genetically in 57 years...but we can't see this genetic change through on its own? That's strange. Sounds like a paradox to me. Heck, even if we go by generations, I don't think there have been any genetic changes in 1400 generations of humans. Unless we count mutations, of course, which are not really a change in the human creature itself. And, I mentioned, we do see things adapting to its surroundings...but that's not creating different species. Pirates wore eye patches to adapt to the dark, does that show evolution?
Don't tell me what my "not caring about the age of the earth" means. I know what it means. It means we'll never know! It means I am not caught up on such a thing. It's something that is beyond our control and calculations. There is no one to confirm or deny the age. Without that, we'll never know. So, why even bother? Why bother arguing about the age of the earth? It gets nowhere. There have been so many different theories by scientists on their dating of the earth's age. They are stretched from 20 million years old to 4.52 billion years old. That's ludicrous to think that science is actually going to figure it out. Next year, it'll be different. But, oh well, at least they have it down to plus/minus 500 million years in age -- because that is real credible. And, all along, people have believed what science has told them about the age of the earth...and it is acceptable. This year 20 million years old. Next year 80 million years old. The year after...200 million years old. So on and so forth. That's perfectly fine because "science is figuring it out." Science just becomes more and more advanced, that's why the dating is getting more and more accurate. Hogwash.
I'm a billionaire. Maybe. I think I am plus/minus $500 million. Who believes me?
Sounds just like a bunch of baseless ramblings. The brainwashing is deep with these folks.tcarrier32;1150341 wrote:I'm assuming it would be the people who believe that a supernatural being impregnated a virgin in order to sacrifice himself, to himself, in order to save them from the sin he condemned them to.
HERPY DERPY DERPY DURRR
Your attempt to explain the history of science (especially its attempts at dating the earth) is so god damn funny. I wish you were kidding, because this is such a great example of Poe's Law its astonishing. That entire third paragraph is about the dumbest thing I have ever read. Kudos, you rant like a five year old. Care link us to the scientist who, just four years ago, claimed the earth was 20M years old, only to change their calculations every year?