Forums → WEPR → [necro] Why you don't believe in God?

881	329702

offline

Zep0Q

71 posts

Nomad

Posted August 13, '09 12:58am UTC

Before you comment, please, read everything, I'm sure that after you read, your life will be changed.

In the following sentences I will explain how stupid is to not believe in God, and I'm gonna use logical thinking and science.

Either "Everything came from nothing", like the "big bang" , witch is impossible, because nothing can only make nothing, or "Something always existed and made everything" like God.

God made this world, by this world I mean time, space and matter, so if God made this world, He lives outside of time, space and matter which means He's eternal, omnipresent and all-powerful.

For those of you who say that the big bang made the universe, I have this sentence: Nothing is the cause of it's own existence.
This doesn't apply to God, because if He doesn't lives in time, He didn't had a beginning, He always existed.
If the universe always was then, we could not reach this moment in time, if something is trapped in time, that means it had a beginning.

Every change that happens everywhere in the universe it's more closer to destruction.
Second law of thermodynamics:
The energy available after a chemical reaction is less than that at the beginning of a reaction; energy conversions are not 100% efficient.
The disorder in the universe always increases.
With each change in form, some energy is degraded to a less useful form and given off into the surroundings, usually as low-quality heat.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same, the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

If God didn't made life, then how did non-life, became life?
As I said, nothing is the cause of it's own existence, life comes from life, your parents were alive when they made you.

Did you knew that a 2x2 inch capacity full with someone's DNA can sustain 6000000000 times more information then a 140 GB hard drive?
I guess you didn't knew, did evolution made your DNA?
God made your DNA, of course!

What about the monkeys?
If we evolved from them, why they stayed as they are? they took a long coffee break, I guess.

What about the fossils?
The scientists say that it takes millions and billions and zilions of years for living tissue to become a fossil, well here's 2 pictures with a cawboy's leg fossilized, enjoy
1#

2#

After all I have showed you, now I'm gonna say that you should accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, because He died for our sins and He didn't ask something from us, just to love our brothers and sisters and to believe in Him.
Anyone can ask for forgiveness as long as he or she is not dead, no matter what they did God can forgive them, if they repent from theirs sins and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
God is mercyful and just, His justice is not denyed by His mercy and this is the reason why God sent His Son Jesus to pay the price for us.

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

Before you comment, please, read everything, I'm sure that after you read, your life will be changed.\r\n\r\nIn the following sentences I will explain how stupid is to not believe in God, and I'm gonna use logical thinking and science.\r\n\r\nEither "Everything came from nothing", like the "big bang" , witch is impossible, because nothing can only make nothing, or "Something always existed and made everything" like God.\r\n\r\nGod made this world, by this world I mean time, space and matter, so if God made this world, He lives outside of time, space and matter which means He's eternal, omnipresent and all-powerful.\r\n\r\nFor those of you who say that the big bang made the universe, I have this sentence: Nothing is the cause of it's own existence. \r\nThis doesn't apply to God, because if He doesn't lives in time, He didn't had a beginning, He always existed.\r\nIf the universe always was then, we could not reach this moment in time, if something is trapped in time, that means it had a beginning.\r\n\r\nEvery change that happens everywhere in the universe it's more closer to destruction.\r\nSecond law of thermodynamics:\r\nThe energy available after a chemical reaction is less than that at the beginning of a reaction; energy conversions are not 100% efficient.\r\nThe disorder in the universe always increases.\r\nWith each change in form, some energy is degraded to a less useful form and given off into the surroundings, usually as low-quality heat.\r\nThe Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same, the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.\r\n\r\nIf God didn't made life, then how did non-life, became life?\r\nAs I said, nothing is the cause of it's own existence, life comes from life, your parents were alive when they made you.\r\n\r\nDid you knew that a 2x2 inch capacity full with someone's DNA can sustain 6000000000 times more information then a 140 GB hard drive?\r\nI guess you didn't knew, did evolution made your DNA?\r\nGod made your DNA, of course!\r\n\r\nWhat about the monkeys?\r\nIf we evolved from them, why they stayed as they are? they took a long coffee break, I guess.\r\n\r\nWhat about the fossils?\r\nThe scientists say that it takes millions and billions and zilions of years for living tissue to become a fossil, well here's 2 pictures with a cawboy's leg fossilized, enjoy :) \r\n1#\r\n[img]http://www.bible.ca/tracks/limestone-cowboy-boot-outside.jpg[/img]\r\n2#\r\n[img]http://www.bible.ca/tracks/limestone-cowboy-boot-inside.jpg[/img]\r\n\r\nAfter all I have showed you, now I'm gonna say that you should accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, because He died for our sins and He didn't ask something from us, just to love our brothers and sisters and to believe in Him.\r\nAnyone can ask for forgiveness as long as he or she is not dead, no matter what they did God can forgive them, if they repent from theirs sins and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.\r\nGod is mercyful and just, His justice is not denyed by His mercy and this is the reason why God sent His Son Jesus to pay the price for us.\r\n\r\nJohn 3:16\r\n"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

881 Replies

offline

Klaushouse

2,770 posts

Nomad

Posted September 21, '09 7:07pm UTC

offline

Zaichik

65 posts

Nomad

Posted September 21, '09 8:28pm UTC

Every change that happens everywhere in the universe it's more closer to destruction.
Second law of thermodynamics:
The energy available after a chemical reaction is less than that at the beginning of a reaction; energy conversions are not 100% efficient.
The disorder in the universe always increases.
With each change in form, some energy is degraded to a less useful form and given off into the surroundings, usually as low-quality heat.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same, the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

Got this from first page, didn't have time to read through entire topic, but just to accent this (again, if it was done before).

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
It really disgusts me when people who don't have a clue what they're talking about go around waving scientifical arguments in my face.
This second law DOES NOT apply to any case. EVEN WIKIPEDIA CAN TELL YOU THIS. And if you don't trust wikipedia or any other internet site I can gladly present you my (dutch) workbook on Basis of Chemistry.
Anyone who has a *decent* form of chemical (or just scientifical) knowledge can reject this argument.

Please stop using things you haven't researched or you don't fully understand yourself.
Using scientifical arguments of authority is a dangerous sport. One day you'll run into someone who actually understands what you're saying.

[quote]Every change that happens everywhere in the universe it's more closer to destruction.\r\nSecond law of thermodynamics:\r\nThe energy available after a chemical reaction is less than that at the beginning of a reaction; energy conversions are not 100% efficient.\r\nThe disorder in the universe always increases.\r\nWith each change in form, some energy is degraded to a less useful form and given off into the surroundings, usually as low-quality heat.\r\nThe Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same, the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.[/quote]\r\n\r\nGot this from first page, didn't have time to read through entire topic, but just to accent this (again, if it was done before).\r\n\r\nGET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.\r\nIt really disgusts me when people who don't have a clue what they're talking about go around waving scientifical arguments in my face.\r\nThis second law DOES NOT apply to any case. EVEN WIKIPEDIA CAN TELL YOU THIS. And if you don't trust wikipedia or any other internet site I can gladly present you my (dutch) workbook on Basis of Chemistry.\r\nAnyone who has a *decent* form of chemical (or just scientifical) knowledge can reject this argument.\r\n\r\nPlease stop using things you haven't researched or you don't fully understand yourself.\r\nUsing scientifical arguments of authority is a dangerous sport. One day you'll run into someone who actually understands what you're saying.

offline

thisisnotanalt

9,821 posts

Shepherd

Posted September 21, '09 10:38pm UTC

Lol, I love how Klaus' picture of Epicurus' quote is philosophical and sophisticated, but it has a grammar error in it at the end.

offline

windshift

320 posts

Nomad

Posted September 22, '09 3:13pm UTC

Anyways what I'm saying is that part of being omnipotent is having the choice not to be, but would he choose not to be?

If he then becomes not omnipotent how the hell is he to become omnipotent again if he becomes 'normal' because if he can again turn omnipotent then he never became normal in the first place. There, I've proven you wrong.

Also, by saying that a massive part of the old testament can be proven false your not proving it false so all your really saying is that you think it could be proven false. Not that it is.

You want me to quote every old testament bible story then it would be several pages long. Creationism is stupid when brought alongside evolution. There's plenty of evidence to prove evolution. There's nothing besides faith to believe in creationism. Noah's Ark is the biggest BS ever made. Do you know how inbred every animal would be from just two of each animal? It says two of every animal, Including bugs? That would be massively impossible. Last and not least the thought of God killing one of each of the eldest boy in an Egyptian family is not cruel beyond belief? That's mass murder.

Last but not least A PROVEN THEORY IS A FACT. Evolution is still a theory, not a fact!

You sir. I want to clap at your ignorance. Truly you are an idiot of the highest caliber. The theory of gravity? The theory of Pi? the theory of rotation around the sun? In scientific terms a theory is a fact that has been proven through scientific means. Learn facts before being a complete idiot. So many creationists use this attack on us atheists. It fails miserably because it is easily proven wrong.

[i]Anyways what I'm saying is that part of being omnipotent is having the choice not to be, but would he choose not to be?[/i]\r\n\r\nIf he then becomes not omnipotent how the hell is he to become omnipotent again if he becomes 'normal' because if he can again turn omnipotent then he never became normal in the first place. There, I've proven you wrong.\r\n\r\n[i]Also, by saying that a massive part of the old testament can be proven false your not proving it false so all your really saying is that you think it could be proven false. Not that it is.[/i]\r\n\r\nYou want me to quote every old testament bible story then it would be several pages long. Creationism is stupid when brought alongside evolution. There's plenty of evidence to prove evolution. There's nothing besides faith to believe in creationism. Noah's Ark is the biggest BS ever made. Do you know how inbred every animal would be from just two of each animal? It says two of every animal, Including bugs? That would be massively impossible. Last and not least the thought of God killing one of each of the eldest boy in an Egyptian family is not cruel beyond belief? That's mass murder.\r\n\r\n[i]Last but not least A PROVEN THEORY IS A FACT. Evolution is still a theory, not a fact![/i]\r\n\r\nYou sir. I want to clap at your ignorance. Truly you are an idiot of the highest caliber. The theory of gravity? The theory of Pi? the theory of rotation around the sun? In scientific terms a theory is a fact that has been proven through scientific means. Learn facts before being a complete idiot. So many creationists use this attack on us atheists. It fails miserably because it is easily proven wrong.

offline

zocc1

183 posts

Nomad

Posted September 22, '09 6:57pm UTC

If he then becomes not omnipotent how the hell is he to become omnipotent again if he becomes 'normal' because if he can again turn omnipotent then he never became normal in the first place. There, I've proven you wrong.

Being omnipotent means He has have the power to be completely normal and completely omnipotent at the same time, he isn't 'bound' to the logic that He created and can change it to do something that is seems to us to be impossible.

You want me to quote every old testament bible story then it would be several pages long. Creationism is stupid when brought alongside evolution. There's plenty of evidence to prove evolution. There's nothing besides faith to believe in creationism. Noah's Ark is the biggest BS ever made. Do you know how inbred every animal would be from just two of each animal? It says two of every animal, Including bugs? That would be massively impossible. Last and not least the thought of God killing one of each of the eldest boy in an Egyptian family is not cruel beyond belief? That's mass murder.

I don't know how they were all fit into the ark, but I don't think it was impossible, I can't prove that it happened but you cant prove that it didn't either... (But there is a lot of evidence that there was a worldwide flood around that time period, and a lot of evidence that animals still exist today.)

Truly you are an idiot of the highest caliber.

I'm not calling you an idiot and I'm not really sure why your calling me one, let me clarify something.

The theory of gravity? The theory of Pi? the theory of rotation around the sun? In scientific terms a theory is a fact that has been proven through scientific means.

Ok, I was wrong that a theory isn't a proven fact, but the thing is, I really don't don't care how God made the earth, I'm 100% sure that he did. The Hebrew word for day can also means an indefinite period of time, and personally I don't call myself a young or an old world Christan, Why? Because I really don't care, it's just a little detail that doesn't change a lot.

So many creationists use this attack on us atheists. It fails miserably because it is easily proven wrong.

Some of evolution is true, but I'm fairly sure that we didn't get here by random chance, and how we got here cannot be completely proven in ANY way, you have faith that we randomly came to exist in that way and I have faith that we came to exist in another.

[i]If he then becomes not omnipotent how the hell is he to become omnipotent again if he becomes 'normal' because if he can again turn omnipotent then he never became normal in the first place. There, I've proven you wrong.[/i]\r\n\r\nBeing omnipotent means He has have the power to be completely normal and completely omnipotent at the same time, he isn't 'bound' to the logic that He created and can change it to do something that is seems to us to be impossible.\r\n\r\n[i]You want me to quote every old testament bible story then it would be several pages long. Creationism is stupid when brought alongside evolution. There's plenty of evidence to prove evolution. There's nothing besides faith to believe in creationism. Noah's Ark is the biggest BS ever made. Do you know how inbred every animal would be from just two of each animal? It says two of every animal, Including bugs? That would be massively impossible. Last and not least the thought of God killing one of each of the eldest boy in an Egyptian family is not cruel beyond belief? That's mass murder.[/i]\r\n\r\nI don't know how they were all fit into the ark, but I don't think it was impossible, I can't prove that it happened but you cant prove that it didn't either... (But there is a lot of evidence that there was a worldwide flood around that time period, and a lot of evidence that animals still exist today.)\r\n\r\n[i]Truly you are an idiot of the highest caliber.[/i]\r\n\r\nI'm not calling you an idiot and I'm not really sure why your calling me one, let me clarify something.\r\n\r\n[i]The theory of gravity? The theory of Pi? the theory of rotation around the sun? In scientific terms a theory is a fact that has been proven through scientific means.[/i]\r\n\r\nOk, I was wrong that a theory isn't a proven fact, but the thing is, I really don't don't care how God made the earth, I'm 100% sure that he did. The Hebrew word for day can also means an indefinite period of time, and personally I don't call myself a young or an old world Christan, Why? Because I really don't care, it's just a little detail that doesn't change a lot.\r\n\r\n[i]So many creationists use this attack on us atheists. It fails miserably because it is easily proven wrong.[/i] \r\n\r\nSome of evolution is true, but I'm fairly sure that we didn't get here by random chance, and how we got here cannot be completely proven in ANY way, you have faith that we randomly came to exist in that way and I have faith that we came to exist in another.

offline

rafterman

600 posts

Nomad

Posted September 22, '09 7:38pm UTC

but I'm fairly sure that we didn't get here by random chance

People used to be fairly sure that earth quakes were caused by underground wind.

offline

Zaichik

65 posts

Nomad

Posted September 22, '09 7:41pm UTC

zocc1
I don't know how they were all fit into the ark, but I don't think it was impossible, I can't prove that it happened but you cant prove that it didn't either... (But there is a lot of evidence that there was a worldwide flood around that time period, and a lot of evidence that animals still exist today.)

Please consider what you wrote there. An 'ark' large enough to carry 2 of each species of animals and keep them seperated with enough space to survive such a journey, through pooring rain for 40 days, can't have disappeared without leaving a trace.
It would also cost immense amounts of wood and an immense amount of labour, and with building skills of that time it would have costed many human lives (not only in duration of building it, but also from the dangers dragging a huge a mount of wood a few 100 ms into the air).
You also cannot denie the proof and studies that have been made in the past hundreds of years. If there were only 2 animals of each species (Just a side-note, there are BILLIONS of species, of which a fairly large amount DO NOT have a life-span long enough to survive said journey), their offspring would need to mate with animals from the same parents.
A small amount of genetical knowledge will point out the obvious:
If (for example) 2 dogs, one male and the other female, both have a certain chromosome of their father, which has a non-dominant, though lethal gene, their offspring has 25% chance to recieve this lethal gene, and thus never be born.
Multiply this by millions of known (non-dominant) genes, and add the genes that cause serious malfunctions, you end up with a significantly smaller number of offspring having a CHANCE at survival. Now I'm not an elephant expert, but of how much children is one couple of elephants capable in their life-span?

Oh, and don't forget to mention the species that can only survive in certain temperature spans, or those that need both water and land to live.
Even if the arc had 'magically' taken care of all that stuff, they still EXIT the arc all in the same place. How could a polar bear possibly survive in a medditeranean climat? Or how could a fly survive on the north-pole?

I'm sorry, but I have to conclude the arc can't be a real story.

[quote][b]zocc1[/b]\r\nI don't know how they were all fit into the ark, but I don't think it was impossible, I can't prove that it happened but you cant prove that it didn't either... (But there is a lot of evidence that there was a worldwide flood around that time period, and a lot of evidence that animals still exist today.)[/quote]\r\n\r\nPlease consider what you wrote there. An 'ark' large enough to carry 2 of each species of animals and keep them seperated with enough space to survive such a journey, through pooring rain for 40 days, can't have disappeared without leaving a trace.\r\nIt would also cost immense amounts of wood and an immense amount of labour, and with building skills of that time it would have costed many human lives (not only in duration of building it, but also from the dangers dragging a huge a mount of wood a few 100 ms into the air).\r\nYou also cannot denie the proof and studies that have been made in the past hundreds of years. If there were only 2 animals of each species (Just a side-note, there are BILLIONS of species, of which a fairly large amount DO NOT have a life-span long enough to survive said journey), their offspring would need to mate with animals from the same parents.\r\nA small amount of genetical knowledge will point out the obvious:\r\nIf (for example) 2 dogs, one male and the other female, both have a certain chromosome of their father, which has a non-dominant, though lethal gene, their offspring has 25% chance to recieve this lethal gene, and thus never be born.\r\nMultiply this by millions of known (non-dominant) genes, and add the genes that cause serious malfunctions, you end up with a significantly smaller number of offspring having a CHANCE at survival. Now I'm not an elephant expert, but of how much children is one couple of elephants capable in their life-span?\r\n\r\nOh, and don't forget to mention the species that can only survive in certain temperature spans, or those that need both water and land to live.\r\nEven if the arc had 'magically' taken care of all that stuff, they still EXIT the arc all in the same place. How could a polar bear possibly survive in a medditeranean climat? Or how could a fly survive on the north-pole?\r\n\r\nI'm sorry, but I have to conclude the arc can't be a real story.

offline

Scotty_OBag

137 posts

Nomad

Posted September 22, '09 9:35pm UTC

I love JeBus.

offline

FireflyIV

3,224 posts

Nomad

Posted September 22, '09 9:43pm UTC

you have faith that we randomly came to exist in that way and I have faith that we came to exist in another.

I'm fed up. You guys always talk about there being soem proof for both sides, and then can't produce anything but an old, un-peer reviewed book, that's largely only semi-related adventure stories anyway, appeals to popular or authority and some unconfirmable, unreproducable isolated events. Seriously, I've been asking for the tiniest shred of proof from theists for years now, because you always claim to have some.

Have some? Show it. Have none? Shut it.

offline

Flippin3500

2,581 posts

Shepherd

Posted September 22, '09 10:27pm UTC

Lol, I love how Klaus' picture of Epicurus' quote is philosophical and sophisticated, but it has a grammar error in it at the end.

I think the last line of Klaus's picture was supposed to be rhetorical, thus not needing a question mark. Man, a Percontation point would do us good right now.

offline

quakingphear

410 posts

Peasant

Posted September 22, '09 11:53pm UTC

I'm fed up. You guys always talk about there being soem proof for both sides, and then can't produce anything but an old, un-peer reviewed book, that's largely only semi-related adventure stories anyway, appeals to popular or authority and some unconfirmable, unreproducable isolated events. Seriously, I've been asking for the tiniest shred of proof from theists for years now, because you always claim to have some.

Well I'd go with a lot of radical theological theory, but I really doubt you care. I would point out how there are big holes in the fossil record, but you would probably just say we haven't found them yet. I might mention Darwin didn't even fully believe in his theory. I would point out that there is not actual evidence for macro evolution, but you'd probably point out that I don't know what I'm talking about, and that very well may be, but it may not. I could say how that there is proof of micro evolution in biology today, and that the Bible exhibits micro evolution. Some scientists show examples of it with fish in a pond changing features over time, but that's still not macro evolution and all that. But you know what? Apathy's a tricky thing like that. I just halfass talked my way through a debate that never happened and probably won't, and if it had happened at the end of the day I still see things the same way and you still will as well. I just recently realized that no matter which side of the debate, if they have some sort of proof they will keep their convictions and the others' proof will not be enough for the other. Both sides are pretty much the same. They both justify their side with their proof and not convince the other.

Oh, and just because the ark would have had to be huge, doesn't neccesarily mean that it was impossible to make. There is plenty of ancient technology and methods we cannot recreate even with modern engineering and technology. And as for the species argument, those are genetics from today. It isn't that far-fetched to think that today's genetic problems are due to mass inbreeding in the past. Maybe they had near perfect genetics and the inbreeding caused all the defects that are exhibited in today's already deteriorating genetic pools. And if that is the case, then the Bible just gave proof to genetics and evolution. Oh, maybe the Bible meant the whole known world.

And as for other religions having incredibly similar stories, in fact almost identical stories, then how is that proof that they didn't happen? That sounds like verification from different sources. What if the religions that are most similar to each other are all right, and just through time and changing politics the vision and meaning has become blurred? Maybe the fact that there are differences between stories means that we should pay better attention to the similarities.

[quote]I'm fed up. You guys always talk about there being soem proof for both sides, and then can't produce anything but an old, un-peer reviewed book, that's largely only semi-related adventure stories anyway, appeals to popular or authority and some unconfirmable, unreproducable isolated events. Seriously, I've been asking for the tiniest shred of proof from theists for years now, because you always claim to have some.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWell I'd go with a lot of radical theological theory, but I really doubt you care.  I would point out how there are big holes in the fossil record, but you would probably just say we haven't found them yet.  I might mention Darwin didn't even fully believe in his theory.  I would point out that there is not actual evidence for macro evolution, but you'd probably point out that I don't know what I'm talking about, and that very well may be, but it may not.  I could say how that there is proof of micro evolution in biology today, and that the Bible exhibits micro evolution.  Some scientists show examples of it with fish in a pond changing features over time, but that's still not macro evolution and all that.  But you know what?  Apathy's  a tricky thing like that.  I just halfass talked my way through a debate that never happened and probably won't, and if it had happened at the end of the day I still see things the same way and you still will as well.  I just recently realized that no matter which side of the debate, if they have some sort of proof they will keep their convictions and the others' proof will not be enough for the other.  Both sides are pretty much the same.  They both justify their side with their proof and not convince the other.  \r\n\r\nOh, and just because the ark would have had to be huge, doesn't neccesarily mean that it was impossible to make.  There is plenty of ancient technology and methods we cannot recreate even with modern engineering and technology.  And as for the species argument, those are genetics from today.  It isn't that far-fetched to think that today's genetic problems are due to mass inbreeding in the past.  Maybe they had near perfect genetics and the inbreeding caused all the defects that are exhibited in today's already deteriorating genetic pools.  And if that is the case, then the Bible just gave proof to genetics and evolution.  Oh, maybe the Bible meant the whole known world.  \r\n\r\nAnd as for other religions having incredibly similar stories, in fact almost identical stories, then how is that proof that they didn't happen?  That sounds like verification from different sources.  What if the religions that are most similar to each other are all right, and just through time and changing politics the vision and meaning has become blurred?  Maybe the fact that there are differences between stories means that we should pay better attention to the similarities.

offline

Zaichik

65 posts

Nomad

Posted September 23, '09 10:33am UTC

Oh, and just because the ark would have had to be huge, doesn't neccesarily mean that it was impossible to make. There is plenty of ancient technology and methods we cannot recreate even with modern engineering and technology. And as for the species argument, those are genetics from today. It isn't that far-fetched to think that today's genetic problems are due to mass inbreeding in the past. Maybe they had near perfect genetics and the inbreeding caused all the defects that are exhibited in today's already deteriorating genetic pools. And if that is the case, then the Bible just gave proof to genetics and evolution. Oh, maybe the Bible meant the whole known world.

You didn't really consider as I asked. A single mountain wouldn't be large enough to contain 2 animals of each species. A construction out of wood like that is practically impossible to make in such a short timespan as one human life. Agreed, there are plenty of ancient building technologies we haven't been able to recreate. Yet how long did it cost for THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of slaves to build a pyramid? Then keep in mind that the 'boat' we're talking about was a fair amount larger, having the necessary accomodations for 2 animals of each species (even if you severely reduce the number by reducing the effects to 'the known world' and 'genetic codes from back then', and stock enough food to last them through the journey.
And if the genetics were perfect back then, inbreeding wouldn't have caused problems. If lethal/malfunctioning genes were present in those '2 animals of every species', it means they were present throughout the entire species. I just pointed out the fact that malfunctioning/lethal genes are more likely to bring out their effects if inbreed happens.
As for 'the whole known world', then how did god manage to heighten water levels enough to flood mountains? The only way to do this would be to flood the entire earth (where did that water come from?).
If so, then how do you explain the existence of other species, living on (at that time) unknown continents? If not, how did the kangaroos cross the ocean?
Or are you insisting that the story of 'the ark' dates back to Pangea?

On a side-note: Darwin didn't really believe his own theory could be true because he did not have the knowledge we have today.
Also I should mention that today's theory of evolution isn't identical to Darwin's, it's just the concept and the general ideas that have been preserved.

[quote]Oh, and just because the ark would have had to be huge, doesn't neccesarily mean that it was impossible to make.  There is plenty of ancient technology and methods we cannot recreate even with modern engineering and technology.  And as for the species argument, those are genetics from today.  It isn't that far-fetched to think that today's genetic problems are due to mass inbreeding in the past.  Maybe they had near perfect genetics and the inbreeding caused all the defects that are exhibited in today's already deteriorating genetic pools.  And if that is the case, then the Bible just gave proof to genetics and evolution.  Oh, maybe the Bible meant the whole known world. [/quote]\r\n\r\nYou didn't really consider as I asked. A single mountain wouldn't be large enough to contain 2 animals of each species. A construction out of wood like that is practically impossible to make in such a short timespan as one human life. Agreed, there are plenty of ancient building technologies we haven't been able to recreate. Yet how long did it cost for THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of slaves to build a pyramid? Then keep in mind that the 'boat' we're talking about was a fair amount larger, having the necessary accomodations for 2 animals of each species (even if you severely reduce the number by reducing the effects to 'the known world' and 'genetic codes from back then'), and stock enough food to last them through the journey.\r\nAnd if the genetics were perfect back then, inbreeding wouldn't have caused problems. If lethal/malfunctioning genes were present in those '2 animals of every species', it means they were present throughout the entire species. I just pointed out the fact that malfunctioning/lethal genes are more likely to bring out their effects if inbreed happens.\r\nAs for 'the whole known world', then how did god manage to heighten water levels enough to flood mountains? The only way to do this would be to flood the entire earth (where did that water come from?).\r\nIf so, then how do you explain the existence of other species, living on (at that time) unknown continents? If not, how did the kangaroos cross the ocean?\r\nOr are you insisting that the story of 'the ark' dates back to Pangea?\r\n\r\nOn a side-note: Darwin didn't really believe his own theory could be true because he did not have the knowledge we have today.\r\nAlso I should mention that today's theory of evolution isn't identical to Darwin's, it's just the concept and the general ideas that have been preserved.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted September 23, '09 7:01pm UTC

Well I'd go with a lot of radical theological theory, but I really doubt you care.

Sure I would care I just ask for proof of your theological theories just as I ask for proof for any other theory. It's just for to often theology wants special treatment.

I would point out how there are big holes in the fossil record, but you would probably just say we haven't found them yet.

We have loads of nearly complete fossil records for species such as the horse for example. No one in the field is expecting to find complete fossil records, gaps are expected. Even though there are gaps it is really unnecessary to fill them in order for the fossil records to support evolution.

I might mention Darwin didn't even fully believe in his theory.

I'm not to sure if this is even true but it's a moot point anyway as Zaichik has pointed out. We have found loads of evidence since Darwin's time supporting the theory of evolution. Things Darwin could have only dreamed of. Also I would like to mention there was a point during Darwin's time that evolution stood on shaky ground but the alternate theory was not creationism and that theory has since been disproven. Sorry I can't remember what it was off the top of my head.

I would point out that there is not actual evidence for macro evolution

We do have species of animals that are showing evidence of evolution. One example was a month that changed it's colors in direct response to it's environment just as evolution would predict. Further evidence is a species of salamander we see going through speciation where groups of these lizards have been separated resulting in one group being unable to interbreed with another. Now evolution predicts that if we allow this process to go on long enough we could end up with a whole new completely different species. We have also made similar observations in birds.

but you'd probably point out that I don't know what I'm talking about

That seems pretty apparent and I would suggest reading up on biology and evolution from sources other then creationist and Biblical websites.

I could say how that there is proof of micro evolution in biology today

I find this funny how creationists are willing to accept micro evolution but not macro considering they are using the same exact processes. It just takes macroscopic organisms longer.

and that the Bible exhibits micro evolution.

Show me.

Some scientists show examples of it with fish in a pond changing features over time, but that's still not macro evolution and all that.

Umm... so do you define evolution? Because last I checked a species making gradual changes over time is evolution.

I just halfass talked my way through a debate that never happened and probably won't,

You sure did halfass it alright.

I just recently realized that no matter which side of the debate, if they have some sort of proof they will keep their convictions and the others' proof will not be enough for the other. Both sides are pretty much the same. They both justify their side with their proof and not convince the other.

Creationism has no proof, all it has is faith which sorry to tell you doesn't count as proof. Even if someone was to prove evolution to be wrong that still wouldn't automatically prove creationism right. You would still have to come up with evidence supporting the claim.

Only evidence I have seen thus far supporting creationism are quote mines, strawmen arguments, flat out lies, and the ever popular "Bible said so".

Oh, and just because the ark would have had to be huge, doesn't neccesarily mean that it was impossible to make. There is plenty of ancient technology and methods we cannot recreate even with modern engineering and technology.

Even if this is true, even if we ignore Zaichik argument which I think is valid btw. Noah would have still had the daunting task of coming up with enough materials to put this thing together. the area from where he came from didn't really provide that much wood to build such a massive structure in such a short period of time.

And as for the species argument, those are genetics from today. It isn't that far-fetched to think that today's genetic problems are due to mass inbreeding in the past. Maybe they had near perfect genetics and the inbreeding caused all the defects that are exhibited in today's already deteriorating genetic pools. And if that is the case, then the Bible just gave proof to genetics and evolution. Oh, maybe the Bible meant the whole known world.

Definitely not possible and again I recommend you read up on biology and evolution from sources outside creationist websites. We can very easily see evidence of inbreeding in a species. Also a species becoming so dangerously underpopulated to the point where it has to inbreed is called bottle necking. This has accured in species before such as the cheetah and we can see the result in there genetics. This effect would actually prevent the wide diversification of animals not cause it. If your going to make a claim such as maybe they had near perfect genetics you have to have evidence to back it up. Other wise we can just make up what ever claim we wish and use that.

And as for other religions having incredibly similar stories, in fact almost identical stories, then how is that proof that they didn't happen? That sounds like verification from different sources.

Using this logic we can say dragons, fairies, and unicorns really existed. oh wait unicorns did exist "Bible says so".

What if the religions that are most similar to each other are all right, and just through time and changing politics the vision and meaning has become blurred? Maybe the fact that there are differences between stories means that we should pay better attention to the similarities.

You know I actually tried that at one point. It all just got even more confusing to follow and out of touch with reality.

[quote]Well I'd go with a lot of radical theological theory, but I really doubt you care.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSure I would care I just ask for proof of your theological theories just as I ask for proof for any other theory. It's just for to often theology wants special treatment.\r\n\r\n[quote]I would point out how there are big holes in the fossil record, but you would probably just say we haven't found them yet.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWe have loads of nearly complete fossil records for species such as the horse for example. No one in the field is expecting to find complete fossil records, gaps are expected. Even though there are gaps it is really unnecessary to fill them in order for the fossil records to support evolution.\r\n\r\n[quote]I might mention Darwin didn't even fully believe in his theory.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI'm not to sure if this is even true but it's a moot point anyway as Zaichik has pointed out. We have found loads of evidence since Darwin's time supporting the theory of evolution. Things Darwin could have only dreamed of. Also I would like to mention there was a point during Darwin's time that evolution stood on shaky ground but the alternate theory was not creationism and that theory has since been disproven. Sorry I can't remember what it was off the top of my head.\r\n\r\n[quote]I would point out that there is not actual evidence for macro evolution[/quote]\r\n\r\nWe do have species of animals that are showing evidence of evolution. One example was a month that changed it's colors in direct response to it's environment just as evolution would predict. Further evidence is a species of salamander we see going through speciation where groups of these lizards have been separated resulting in one group being unable to interbreed with another. Now evolution predicts that if we allow this process to go on long enough we could end up with a whole new completely different species. We have also made similar observations in birds.\r\n\r\n[quote]but you'd probably point out that I don't know what I'm talking about[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat seems pretty apparent and I would suggest reading up on biology and evolution from sources other then creationist and Biblical websites. \r\n\r\n[quote]I could say how that there is proof of micro evolution in biology today[/quote]\r\n\r\nI find this funny how creationists are willing to accept micro evolution but not macro considering they are using the same exact processes. It just takes macroscopic organisms longer. \r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]and that the Bible exhibits micro evolution.[/quote]\r\n\r\nShow me.\r\n\r\n[quote]Some scientists show examples of it with fish in a pond changing features over time, but that's still not macro evolution and all that.[/quote]\r\n\r\nUmm... so do you define evolution? Because last I checked a species making gradual changes over time is evolution.\r\n\r\n[quote]I just halfass talked my way through a debate that never happened and probably won't,[/quote]\r\n\r\nYou sure did halfass it alright.\r\n\r\n[quote]I just recently realized that no matter which side of the debate, if they have some sort of proof they will keep their convictions and the others' proof will not be enough for the other.  Both sides are pretty much the same.  They both justify their side with their proof and not convince the other. [/quote]\r\n\r\nCreationism has no proof, all it has is faith which sorry to tell you doesn't count as proof. Even if someone was to prove evolution to be wrong that still wouldn't automatically prove creationism right. You would still have to come up with evidence supporting the claim.\r\n\r\nOnly evidence I have seen thus far supporting creationism are quote mines, strawmen arguments, flat out lies, and the ever popular "Bible said so".\r\n\r\n[quote]Oh, and just because the ark would have had to be huge, doesn't neccesarily mean that it was impossible to make.  There is plenty of ancient technology and methods we cannot recreate even with modern engineering and technology.[/quote]\r\n\r\nEven if this is true, even if we ignore Zaichik argument which I think is valid btw. Noah would have still had the daunting task of coming up with enough materials to put this thing together. the area from where he came from didn't really provide that much wood to build such a massive structure in such a short period of time. \r\n\r\n[quote]And as for the species argument, those are genetics from today.  It isn't that far-fetched to think that today's genetic problems are due to mass inbreeding in the past.  Maybe they had near perfect genetics and the inbreeding caused all the defects that are exhibited in today's already deteriorating genetic pools.  And if that is the case, then the Bible just gave proof to genetics and evolution.  Oh, maybe the Bible meant the whole known world.[/quote]\r\n\r\nDefinitely not possible and again I recommend you read up on biology and evolution from sources outside creationist websites. We can very easily see evidence of inbreeding in a species. Also a species becoming so dangerously underpopulated to the point where it has to inbreed is called bottle necking. This has accured in species before such as the cheetah and we can see the result in there genetics. This effect would actually prevent the wide diversification of animals not cause it. If your going to make a claim such as maybe they had near perfect genetics you have to have evidence to back it up. Other wise we can just make up what ever claim we wish and use that.\r\n\r\n[quote]And as for other religions having incredibly similar stories, in fact almost identical stories, then how is that proof that they didn't happen?  That sounds like verification from different sources.[/quote]\r\n\r\nUsing this logic we can say dragons, fairies, and unicorns really existed. oh wait unicorns did exist "Bible says so". \r\n\r\n[quote]What if the religions that are most similar to each other are all right, and just through time and changing politics the vision and meaning has become blurred?  Maybe the fact that there are differences between stories means that we should pay better attention to the similarities.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYou know I actually tried that at one point. It all just got even more confusing to follow and out of touch with reality.

offline

windshift

320 posts

Nomad

Posted September 23, '09 8:29pm UTC

I might mention Darwin didn't even fully believe in his theory.

Ha. Best fail ever. Darwin was a firm believer of Evolution. He never said that he didn't believe in it. Of course like any good scientist he tried to 'disapprove' his theory. The ONLY hole he found was geologic records.

I would point out that there is not actual evidence for macro evolution, but you'd probably point out that I don't know what I'm talking about, and that very well may be, but it may not.

That is brilliant. You say that you know what you are talking about. You know how I know you don't? You say that macroevolution and microevolution are different things. They are not, they are exactly the same. Macroevolution is simply a longer evolution. One can't be real without the other really. Otherwise it would make no sense.

So yeah. Learn your biology or at least Wikipedia.

offline

FireflyIV

3,224 posts

Nomad

Posted September 23, '09 9:40pm UTC

@ quakingphear, you're right, I would point out all those things. Here's a list of links I compiled quite a while back to argue this very point. I hope you enjoy them.

29+ Cases for Macroevolution
An Account of a Debate with a Creationist
An Account of the 1993 Creation Conference
All About Archaeopteryx
Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths
Arachaeopteryx: Answering the Challenge of the Fossil Record
Are Mutations Harmful?
Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics
Bombadier Beetles and the Argument of Design
The 'Burdick Print'
Creationsim and the Platypus
Creationist Arguments: Java Man
Creationist Arguments: The Monkey Quote
Creationist Arguments: Neandertals
Creationist Arguments: Peking Man
A Creationist Exposed: Gish
Creationist Whppoers
Creationists and Pithecanthropines
The Creation Research Society's Creed
Darwin's Black Box: Irredicule Complexity or Irrepoducible Irreducibility?
Digit Numbering and Limb Development
Dino Blood Redux
Dinosaur Footprints in Coal
Dinosaur Valley State Park
Do Human Tracks Occur in the Kayenta of Arizona?
Debate: Edwards vs. Aguillard
Entropy, Disorder and Life
Evidence for Evolution
The Evolution of Improved Fitness
The Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue
Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution
Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Evolution
Fossil Hominids: Lucy
Genetic Algorithims and Evolutionary Computation
Geologic References in the Paluxy Controversy
How Good are those Young Earth Arguments: A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims
Horse Evolution: Hyrocatherium and Hyrax
IRC Graduate School Catalogue and List of Publications
Images of Neandertals
Information Theory and Creationism: Spetner and Biological Information
Jury-Rigged Design
Kansas Evolution Hearings
Lucy's Knee Joint
A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Alleged Credentials
Observed Instances of Speciation
On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers and Forgery
On the Heels of Dinosaurs
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
An Overview of Dinosuar Tracking
Peking Man and Homo erectus
Plaigiarised Errors and Molecular Genetics
Publish or Perish: Some Published Works on Biochemical Evolution
A Response to Ashby Camps 'Critique'
Response to Casey Luskin
A Response to Wayne Jackson
Review: Bones of Contention
A Review of IRC's Impact Article 151
A Review of NBC's 'The Mysterious Origins of Man'
Review: Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis
Review: The Image of God
Sauropods, Elephants,Weightlifters
Sea-Monster or Shark?
Scientific Creationism and Error
Scientists Challenge Claim for 60,000 year old Mungo DNA
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution and Probability
Suspicious Creationist Credentials
A Tale of Two Teeth
The Taylor Site 'Man Tracks'
Ted Holden's Frequent Questions Answered
Ted Holden's World
The Texas Dinosaur/'Man Track' Controversy
Transitional Vertevrate Fossils FAQ
A Visit to the IRC Museum

@ quakingphear, you're right, I would point out all those things. Here's a list of links I compiled quite a while back to argue this very point. I hope you enjoy them.\r\n\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/]29+ Cases for Macroevolution[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-rob-day.html]An Account of a Debate with a Creationist[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/creation-conference.html]An Account of the 1993 Creation Conference[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html]All About Archaeopteryx[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/osteocalcin.html]Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html]Arachaeopteryx: Answering the Challenge of the Fossil Record[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html]Are Mutations Harmful?[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html]Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics [/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html]Bombadier Beetles and the Argument of Design[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html]The 'Burdick Print'[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html]Creationsim and the Platypus[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html]Creationist Arguments: Java Man[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/monkeyquote.html]Creationist Arguments: The Monkey Quote[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html]Creationist Arguments: Neandertals[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_peking.html]Creationist Arguments: Peking Man[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html]A Creationist Exposed: Gish[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html]Creationist Whppoers[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/brace.html]Creationists and Pithecanthropines[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/crs-creed.html]The Creation Research Society's Creed[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html]Darwin's Black Box: Irredicule Complexity or Irrepoducible Irreducibility?[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/bird_and_frog_development.html]Digit Numbering and Limb Development[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html]Dino Blood Redux[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html]Dinosaur Footprints in Coal[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/dvsp.html]Dinosaur Valley State Park[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/arizon.html]Do Human Tracks Occur in the Kayenta of Arizona?[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html]Debate: Edwards vs. Aguillard[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html]Entropy, Disorder and Life[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html]Evidence for Evolution[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/]The Evolution of Improved Fitness[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html]The Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html]Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/]Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Evolution[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html]Fossil Hominids: Lucy[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html]Genetic Algorithims and Evolutionary Computation[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/georef.html]Geologic References in the Paluxy Controversy[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html]How Good are those Young Earth Arguments: A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_hyrax.html]Horse Evolution: Hyrocatherium and Hyrax[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-catalog.html]IRC Graduate School Catalogue and List of Publications[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/savage.html]Images of Neandertals[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/spetner.html]Information Theory and Creationism: Spetner and Biological Information[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html]Jury-Rigged Design[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo.html]Kansas Evolution Hearings[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html]Lucy's Knee Joint[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html]A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Alleged Credentials[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html]Observed Instances of Speciation[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html]On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers and Forgery[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html]On the Heels of Dinosaurs[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/]The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/ovrdino.html]An Overview of Dinosuar Tracking[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sinanth.html]Peking Man and Homo erectus[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/]Plaigiarised Errors and Molecular Genetics[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html]Publish or Perish: Some Published Works on Biochemical Evolution[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html]A Response to Ashby Camps 'Critique'[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/luskin.html]Response to Casey Luskin[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wjackson.html]A Response to Wayne Jackson[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html]Review: Bones of Contention[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/sor-ipub.html]A Review of IRC's Impact Article 151[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/nbc.html]A Review of NBC's 'The Mysterious Origins of Man'[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oconnell_cg.html]Review: Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/imageofgod.html]Review: The Image of God[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/sauropods.html]Sauropods, Elephants,Weightlifters[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/plesios.html]Sea-Monster or Shark?[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html]Scientific Creationism and Error[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mungonhm.html]Scientists Challenge Claim for 60,000 year old Mungo DNA[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html]The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution and Probability[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html]Suspicious Creationist Credentials[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tooth.html]A Tale of Two Teeth[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html]The Taylor Site 'Man Tracks'[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ted-qfa-reply.html]Ted Holden's Frequent Questions Answered[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/teds-world.html]Ted Holden's World[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html]The Texas Dinosaur/'Man Track' Controversy[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html]Transitional Vertevrate Fossils FAQ[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/linke.html]A Visit to the IRC Museum[/url]

Showing 436-450 of 881

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → [necro] Why you don't believe in God?