-235 If scientists require proof and evidence to support their theories before they become accepted, then why do atheists support science so much? Atheists blindly believe a theory without any proof or evidence and ridicule/dismiss anyone who disagrees, amirite?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ayy im agnostic too.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Me too

by Anonymous 13 years ago

We do not blindly follow it. We know the research. There is TONS of proof that god doesn't exist.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

where? I wanna see legitimate proof and not bullshit like "he CANT exist"

by Anonymous 13 years ago

For starters: http://4chanarchive.org/images/adv/360096/1266444296692.gif

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I can't believe I've never seen this image before. This is pretty great.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah ironically enough, someone made it on a post I wrote about Scrantoncity.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I saw "4chan" and thought, "Oh...", but then I read it. That's amazing!! I'll have to show that to my sister. She'll appreciate it (:

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah that was my reaction when I first saw the link too

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's a really intresting article!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

In the realm of any possible god it is unknowable. But if you're talking about the god of Islam, Christianity or Judaism you can easily disprove the existence of god based on the descriptions the individual religion makes.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

how so? (prove that the God of Islam/Christianity/Judaism doesn't exist)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There are several ways to disprove them. The most well-known is the riddle of Epicurus; "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" It has never been satisfactorily answered because it cannot be.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That doesn't disprove Gods existence, simply his ethics.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But since he is described to be "omnibenevolent" he cannot exist as described. His three main traits is omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Those three traits within one being cannot possibly result in the world we know.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

As one of you said, "the bible was written thousands of year ago by people". People are flawed and God could be very different from how they described him. If you can't prove something based on an old book than you can't just turn around and use that same book to disprove it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Given that this book that was "written thousands of year ago by people" is the only thing that is supposed to be able to teach you God's morals, that is no excuse. Aside from that these three characteristics aren't some minor detail, without God being the source of absolute morality the entire point of Christianity/Islam/Judaism falls to the ground.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

God is both willing and able to stop evil. According to Genesis 2 he originally created a peaceful world until humans changed it. But God desires humans to have freewill. If it were not this way, life would be pointless and dogmatic. Evil “cometh” from the freewill men have. You say that because evil exists God cannot be benevolent; I feel this is a hasty conclusion. God does not create evil-it is against his nature-evil comes from humans. You might argue that God should intervene. But you take for granted that God doesn’t intervene. God could be preventing 99% of the evil that could occur. We cannot know what deeds God has prevented because he would have prevented them. You could think of the evil that exists, however, in this way. If a hunter were to push a trapped animal farther into the trap to relrelease it, the animal might think badly of the hunter, thinking only of the harm. Only after release might the animal understand the benevolence of the ...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

God creates man knowing that he will sin and then punishes him for sinning? "God does not create evil-it is against his nature-evil comes from humans" A large portion of human suffering comes from things that are not caused by humans such as natural disasters. Any argument that you can make against the riddle is automatically invalid because of the simple fact that if you look around you this world is obviously not perfect and the existence of a god that is both omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent would inevitably result in a world of "perfect good".

by Anonymous 13 years ago

A God with those 3 qualities would not create a world where people were forced to do what he wanted, even if what he wanted was to make a world of perfect good. In making such a world he defies his benevolent nature because forcing people to do exactly what you want is inherently wrong. The only way those 3 qualities ever work out is for Him to create a world where people have freewill. As for natural disasters, God may have a reason for them(I don’t know that much about weather patterns, but they might be needed to keep the Earth functioning). Also, there is the devil and a third of God’s angels (called demons) that are here on the earth to try and pull us from God, and I would say they have some control over natural disasters as well. And, if you accept the fact that God wants us to have freewill and the fact that the devil exists, then easy to see why this world is not perfect.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"A God with those 3 qualities would not create a world where people were forced to do what he wanted" That might be, but it is still in no way an argument for letting evil exist. Who says he had to create humans in the first place? If he had never created life no harm would ever be done. Blaming all evil on demons and the devil is an even more inefficient argument. You seem to have forgotten that God is supposed to be omnipotent, he should be able to destroy the devil and all demons with the snap of his fingers (if he has any).

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I believe that God originally made us so that he may love us and we may bring him glory. The story of Job gives further insight into God. God says to Satan about Job “there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man who fears God and turns away from evil” (Job 2:8 ESV). Satan then asks to test Job and God “consents” as long as his life is spared. From this I understand that God takes pride in his children, and he is willing to test our faith for his glory. Notice God’s concern for Job’s Life, god makes limits. We also discover that Satan causes evil but must ask permission. In sum, God allows Satan to commit evil on the earth out of pride for us and so that he might be glorified by our actions. It is not a strike against his omnipotence because God allows Satan to do this for God’s glory.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What does God need our praise for? Does being god not do enough for his self-esteem? God would not need to test us in order to test our faith since he is all-knowing, he would already know the strength of our faith. And in case you hadn't heard, life ain't fair. What sense does it make that this "test" that we're given is completely different from person to person? Some people can go through life without a single worry while others struggle to survive. I'm sure you can go on and on like this, but it's pointless, Epicurus' riddle simply holds water, no one has been able to satisfactorily answer the riddle in the many hundreds of years it has existed no matter how many have tried. Therefore, I bid you farewell 'cause I'm thoroughly bored with this debate.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Theres is also an unlimited amount of proof that we know nothing and should keep an open mind about anything. Your point?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There is no proof that Good doesn't exist. No one knows what God is so one can't prove he/she/it doesn't exist.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How are we 'blindly' accepting a theory? Theres crazy amounts of evidence of evolution. Granted, there's limited proof of the big bang, but I wouldn't say that a book that is a perverted version of the Egyptian 'Book of the Dead' (educate yourself) written thousands of years ago has a shred of merit.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Are you serious? Nearly all of the so-called "proof" for evolution has been shown to be fraudulent! Why don't YOU educate yourself? Fossil Record- what the heck? There is no evidence to suggest this exists. And there are so many inconsistencies and lies contained within it. Look up "Pre-Cambrian explosion." Pretty much all the half-monkey half-man people are fake. Homo Habilis? Fake. Austrilopithecus? Fake. Homo erectus? Fake! It's inexcusable to be teaching that crap of a theory to kids as fact. Unacceptable.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Do you just love to debate religion? It's like you have a debate on every post on amirite about religion.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Heck yeah I do. Sadly, few people pose a challenge.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Not to burst your bubble or anything, but hard evidence counts as real. All of it is verifiable with carbon dating. As for evidence of your "God," there is no evidence. And don't give me any "Well, where did we come from??" Ignorance on a subject doesn't give you the right to create imaginary figures with power.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm an atheist, but even so, carbon dating is only reliable for a few thousand years back.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Carbon dating, really? Do you know two-licks about that? If you wish, we can stay solely on radiometric dating, and why it's all inherently flawed.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Sorry, but I'm no expert on chemistry or how to determine the age of objects. Do enlighten me on the imperfections of the system that is used.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Okay. Carbon dating is where they measure the amount of C14 in an object. One absolutely tremendous assumption scientists make is that the ratio is a constant. Well, nobody knows that for sure. That's a guess. So, they measure the ratio, and measure the amount in a living object around the artifact, and using the ratio in the present one, calculate a date. Some flaws: One, there is absolutely no way to check this. At all. It can be accurate, or it may be utterly incorrect, due to a disaster or something. Two, there is a high probability of "contamination" where some radioactive carbon infiltrates the artifact, skewing the data. Three: Different laboratories using the same materials can come up with way different results. They haven't been able to rectify this problem. It's simply too unreliable to be taken as a valid source.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm up for a friendly debate.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're an idiot. Home habikis, ostrolopithicus, homo erectus are most definitely not fake. They are in museums you tard! WTF are you smokin?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

At least I can spell "Australopithecus." Second, are you a moron? The replicas of an already faulty copy are in museums. Did you know that none of those fossils are more than 40% complete, and the scientists crafted them according to how they thought it should look? You didn't know that? Woah, you need to learn some things. Homo Habilis is a mixture between Gorilla and Human fossils. It's pretty simple.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're like one of those crazy people that thinks the government planned the attack on the two towers. Just because they don't have completed fossils doesn't mean that they never existed.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

funny how that statement competely contridicts your atheism.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's safe to conclude the winner of that debate. Especially if your rebuttal was "You're like one of those crazy people..." Yeah, then you just got owned by a "crazy person."

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Not at all. And that does not contradict my atheism. There is not a single shred of evidence for god. There is a lot of substantial evidence of evolution.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Funny, I've asked three times... What evidence is there? Also, scroll down and see what I said to Kattfro.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You can literally see species evolving over millions of years. Ya know how narrators on prehistorical shows say that "the elephant is a descendent of this animal"? That's what it means. It means that the prehistoric animals evolved into elephants.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Uh-huh. Is there ANY evidence at all of this? Read the post. Don't we need evidence for this?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't know the exact genetic sequence or family tree of these species, but yes, there is proof. Now where is the evidence of god and creation?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Woah, let's first discuss this. Can you look it up? Also, is this a theory, or is it fact? Because I'm almost certain nobody witnessed it. You know what real science entails? It involves observation. Did we observe this. DID SOMEONE OBSERVE THAT?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Of course nobody witnessed it. What part of millions of years did you not understand? The proof is Charles Darwin's origin of species. Now, again, where is the proof of god and creation?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Once again, you've said there is evidence for evolution. I don't know about you, but that is some flimsy evidence. Heck if that's what evolution is based on, I'm surprised so many people subscribe to it. Here's some evidence: Point A: Everything has a creator. Or an instigator. Nothing is capable of bringing about its own existence. IE, something cannot decide to exist, then exist. This is simple logic. Do you agree with this point? This is reaffirmed every day. Do we ever see horses randomly spring up in your yard? Do cars fully manufactured appear randomly? No. That's just dumb. Nothing can just spring up. That's stupid to believe. Do you agree? Second, nothing bound by the laws of physics can exist forever. The universe hasn't existed forever. Scientists "proved" this earlier, but, if you want, I'll explain it logically. Third, and this is the only logical conclusion, some being unfettered by physics, able to do as He wishes, HAD to create e...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Everything. Dang, so close to being one post. So, what evidence is there for evolution?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Your proof is "everything has a creator"? No, not at all. Mountains form because of tectonic plates mashing against each other. No supreme being or human created mountains. Also, I just freaking told you the evidence for evolution. Read it. Btw, type Scrantoncity into the search bar, everyone agrees that you're like a troll, but less smart because you actually believe the things you say.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Buddy, I clarified it with "instigator." What causes mountains? Supposedly plate tectonics. We haven't witnessed that, though. What causes your hair to be messed up in the morning? Friction. EVERYTHING has a cause. Name one thing that is shown to not have a cause. One thing. That counts as evidence? One sentence? Wow. Pathetic.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, actually, one sentence is not evidence. The while book "origin of species" is the evidence. You didn't give any evidence of god btw. And evolution does not say that the universe created itself. I'm not arguing with you that everything has a cause.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ah, so what point are you contesting, then? Or can you find a flaw in the logic? I'll be happy to clarify. You wrote one sentence. Here, ill cut you a deal. I'll read Origin of Species if you'll read the Bible. Deal?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I've read the parts of the bible that aren't boring as hell. The parts where the god that is so great and loving kills people because he doesn't approve of their lifestyle (Soddom and Gomorrah). And the part where Jesus drives a herd of pigs off of a cliff because he thinks they are possessed.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh, I think you just looked up that on the Internet, right? Okay, hypothetical scenario. You built robots. Robots meant to abide by your rules and do whatever you ask. Robots that could be theoretically programmed for that, but would have to require supervision to maintain that. Okay? Suddenly, they all refuse to obey you, even go so far as to say you don't exist. Their actions were destroying themselves. So you give them an ultimatum. They still refuse. So you take out their batteries. Good scenario, eh? Basically, as the creator, you can do as you wish. Especially if it's beneficial in the end.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, the creator could do what he wishes, but if he does exist, he's a racist, homophobe, prude, murderer, and I'm sure a few other things.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Uh huh. Even if He knows the by-products of those self-destroying lifestyles? You're on thin ice, buddy.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

hi scrantoncity i'm just curious... who created god?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(Scrantoncity=douche): As I have said many a time, nothing. When one creates time, does it even exist? Is there a "forever" if time didn't exist until He made it? However, He transcends time.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

its unbelievable how full of shit you are. i really don't care what you believe, i just think its kind of sad that you are going to live your life based on an ancient book rather than modern science. good luck to you sir.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(Scrantoncity=douche): Uh-huh. Once again, what "science?" I thought science was the study of observable things. Have we observed trans-species evolution?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

we have observed evidence of trans-species evolution. that evidence would be fossils backed up by carbon dating and comparing fossils to skeletons today but i know that you're going to say that that sort of evidence is faulty so idk why i am bothering to try.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(Scrantoncity=douche): You know why I say it's faulty? Because it is. And a little research will show you that. That still isn't science. That's just hypothetical scenarios. They literally just look for visual similarities. If that's science, then I'm Anthony. (I'm not Anthony.)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

it blows my mind that u can stubbornly defend that scientific research is faulty when you take a book written thousands of years ago and trust it with the creation of the universe.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(Scrantoncity=douche): Well, which one has been proven fallible?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

umm... the bible

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(Scrantoncity=douche): Evidence? Did you know that 80 years ago they thought we had over 100 vestigial parts. Ones they thought to be extraneous. Today we have none. Did you know that 60 years ago Heroine could have been purchased over the counter? And they thought smoking was beneficial? Now, where has the Bible been shown to be fallible?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Do you believe in magic? As in magicians pulling rabbits out of hats? Cuz if you believe the bible, that's basically the same thing. If Jesus can turn water into wine, why can't a guy I hired for my kids 10th birthday party pull 100 rags out of his stomach?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Do you believe in evolution? Why don't we have wings? Surely that's a beneficial attribute? Why are cows still around? If they evolved into whales, shouldn't they have died out? If not, why evolve?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

if you understood at all the process of evolution you would realize why none of those things are true.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(Scrantoncity=douche): Really? I was under the impression that my biology textbook says that. So are you saying our government funded books have inaccuracies?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

your biology textbook says that humans should have wings because of evolution? no it does. your textbook says that evolution happens due to natural selection, so unless all the people who don't have wing like growths on their backs aren't able to survive, then humans will not develop wings. dumbshit.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(Scrantoncity=douche): No, the cow to whales part. And actually, over 600,000 supposed years, with mutations coming as abundantly as scientists claim, wouldn't at least one have wings? Come now, it already happened to the birdies. It isn't improbably. So cow to whales, you said that was false?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

i never said cows to whales was false, ill be honest i dont really know the evolution of cows or whales, but i do know the process it takes. if you say that humans should have wings because birds have wings then shouldn't all animals have wings? the example you give makes wings seem like an adaptation better than all others. Humans adapted in different ways. we got opposable thumbs, large brains, and legs that allowed us to walk on two feet.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(Scrantoncity=douche): Evidence? You have yet to give indisputable evidence for this...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

yes, the origin of species was perceived as proof that one race is better than another, but that wasn't it's intention. And the bible is used to justify homophobia. You wanna talk about inconsistencies? Read the bible dude, it's ridiculous. Also, you ignored my magic question. There's a difference between evolution and adaptation. Soo I can see I'm getting nowhere here, and you're going to keep being stubborn about this, so I'm done. And no, you did not win, I'm just tired of this argument.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, so either mass murdering of different races, or simple disagreement with someone's sinful choice, yeah, I can see how homophobia is equivalent to justifying genocide. It's not magic, it's miracles. Answer this, would an all-powerful being be able to do whatever it wants? ALL-POWERFUL.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"There's a difference between evolution and adaptation" Yes. Adaptation is over maybe a few hundred years, and evolution is over a few million years. Other than that, they're pretty similar. Adaptation allows one species to survive in a new climate, and evolution occurs when we decide a new species has been created.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So i get it, you deny evidence. Go meet up with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. You too should get along perfectly@810776 (scrantoncity):

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Uh, no. Research it. Those weren't more than 40% complete. The scientists constructed them on how they personally thought they should look. Funny, right?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

they were holding an everstone

by Anonymous 13 years ago

maybe the parts that give women fewer rights than men or the parts that deem homosexuality a sin. Or maybe how it has been used to justify wars, slavery, execution, and submission.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(Scrantoncity=douche): You know, what was used to justify murder? The fact that we're all advanced apes? That we're no better than the food we eat? What's used to justify genocide? Evolution? The thought that one race (the Arians in hitler's case) is genetically superior to other races. Whatever you say can be flipped around with twice the damages.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

hitler was the only legitimate evidence you gave there.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(Scrantoncity=douche): Based on what, you're own stupid opinions? Yeah. Even so, one of the worst genocides ever, all justified with the evolution theory.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

nope based on your lack of evidence besides hitler. I agree, the holocaust was awful, but why were those people killed? they were jews. thats not evolution. thats religion. What religion were the majority of nazis? christian. Now im not blaming the holocaust on christians, but it is wrong to blame it solely on evolution.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(scrantoncity=douche):dont forget about masturbation. ;)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You didn't win the argument, I think atheisticmystic is winning.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Evolution has nothing to do with not believing in God....

by Anonymous 13 years ago

EXACTLY!!!! Finally! Someone who isn't an ignorant jerk!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

All atheists do not believe in Evolution, or whatever scientific theories you're referring to.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Actualy, its the exact opposite. Christains accpept and believe a whole religion over what is said in a book that was written thousands of years ago, one that has no proof whatsoever.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah!!!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

yah kinda jerk post. just saying. why are you not atheist? please explain

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't blindly accept science. I also don't believe I'm 100% correct. There might be a god. I still don't consider myself agnostic, though, because I'm 99.9% sure there isn't. So. Anyway, theories? Gravity is only a theory, but c'mon. Apples won't randomly start floating. There is a large amount of evidence supporting evolution, too. Not to sound like a jerk, but what evidence is there of a god? My dad commonly says, "Look outside. How can you say there ISN'T a god?" And I think, "Well, if God created the universe, how come he chose Earth to have a Messiah, and not the other millions of planets that have life out there?" Oh, and if someone believes in something other than evolution or gravity, whatever. They can believe whatever they want and it won't affect me. /walloftext

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Wow. Gravity is a law, honey, perhaps you should look that up. Second, as I've asked before, what evidence is there of evolution? I mean, pretty much all of it is fabricated. Third, I'll present you a case for a God, and it will only require a minimal amount of intelligence to understand it!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, it's still only a theory. We had to watch a whole video because stuff like that offends some peoples' religions. Gravity is a THEORY. And, *honey*, look up "Galapagos finches" and "facts about evolution". God is fabricated, btw, since you want to go down that road. What evidence is there? Does it seem like I'm being "mean"? I hate being called "honey".

by Anonymous 13 years ago

A WHOLE video?? First off, it's a law. Look up Isaac Newton. For lack of a better site, here's the Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation Really? 150 years later and STILL the finches come up? Wow, and I thought everyone heard of how false that is. Okay, are we talking about variance or trans-species evolution? There is absolutely no evidence for trans-species evolution. Question, CAN THE FINCHES STILL BREED? What? They can? Woah! The finches can grow large beaks, they can fly faster, they may even reach the size of a cat. However, they will never be the size of a horse. They also will never produce a dog, or a cow, or any other species besides their own. God is fabricated? Really, one can argue contrarily to that. One can argue that God made US. But that is a moot point, can we stray away from that? There's no evidence either way... However, I can still produce a convincing case for the need of a God. Wanna hear it?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'd love to avoid a long argument but like you just said you can state a convincing case for the "need" of a God but no the existence. I absolutely agree God being real would make everything better, but the basis for most of the arguments on this page is that he doesn't exist, not that he shouldn't

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, "need" as in "It's impossible for one not to exist," not "need" as in "one should exist."

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, I WOULD like to hear that case. And yes, it is possible to "change species", in a sense. It'd take millions upon millions of years, but it can happen. Every small mutation matters. Say, for some bizarre reason, there's a mutation and a bird is born twice the size it should be. That size difference is forever in its gene, and it can be passed to its offspring. Those offspring breed, and centuries later, there are thousands/millions of oversized birds. There can also be a bunch of mini-mutations. As long as the mutated offspring breeds, there can be variations and it can change. Far-fetched, perhaps, but not entirely disproved. Also, you contradicted yourself. You said the finch story was false, but then you said their beaks, size, etc. COULD change. And I hit the points you made. Some not thoroughly, but I still discussed them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Okay, it'll take a long time. Let me do it in the next response, right after this, okay? You say it COULD, but is there any evidence for this? Is there? Have we witnessed this? Because this entire post is about evidence... No, the bird couldn't be born twice its size. That is an impossible mutation. But, say, it could, that would make it half as fast as the rest of the birds, probably incapable of flying, so super susceptible to predators. But, once again, this is based on evidence, not hypothetical situations. I said what happened was variation. That isn't trans-species evolution. The finches still are finches. They aren't crows or ravens.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

This is the case. Point A: Everything has a creator. Or an instigator. Nothing is capable of bringing about its own existence. IE, something cannot decide to exist, then exist. This is simple logic. Do you agree with this point? This is reaffirmed every day. Do we ever see horses randomly spring up in your yard? Do cars fully manufactured appear randomly? No. That's just dumb. Nothing can just spring up. That's stupid to believe. Do you agree? Second, nothing bound by the laws of physics can exist forever. The universe hasn't existed forever. Scientists "proved" this earlier, but, if you want, I'll explain it logically. Third, and this is the only logical conclusion, some being unfettered by physics, able to do as He wishes, HAD to create everything. Pretty good, eh?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Sorry for the late response, I took a nap because I'm going Black Friday shopping at 3 AM. Anyway, if everything must have a creator, what created God? Don't say "He has always been there," because that contradicts your statement and because I've heard that so many times. Also, on your point of me saying "it COULD happen", and there not being any evidence, there isn't any scientific evidence of God. In your defense, we haven't exactly *researched* him [because, tbh, I don't know how we could], but we also haven't fully researched evolution or proved everything about evolution. If we had, it wouldn't be a theory. The difference between your god and my evolution is that evolution has cold, hard facts. I don't like calling people ignorant, but you're being very ignorant if you're blatantly ignoring the facts of evolution.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's funny, haven't I asked you thrice? And yet, NO evidence for evolution. I mustve asked this maybe ten times on this post. GIVE ME EVIDENCE. You have yet to do that. You keep mentioning the facts, yet you have not asserted any evidence to support your claims. Why ever not? Is it impossible? Why don't you give me an example of someone who witnessed a trans-species evolution. What, you can't? Okay then, how about you tell me why it's a "proven fact."

by Anonymous 13 years ago

1. I never said trans-species evolution was a proven fact. Also, it'd be impossible to find a witness because even variance evolution takes centuries, even millenniums. 2. You have yet to give me evidence of a superior being. 3. http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm It took about 35 seconds to find this on Google. You're perfectly capable of using Google, aren't you?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's funny how you keep bringing up what I believe. I gave you a condition which you couldn't deny. You just said you agreed with the first point. What I believe is irrelevant. Read the post. You keep saying you believe facts. What facts? That website was dumb. I don't need a history of evolution; I know what started it. All I'm saying is that there is no logic, no ration thought, no witnesses, and no evidence for trans-species evolution. And you have YET to disprove that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

lol you realize your contradicted your own "evidence". You bring physics into the equation to explain how everything has a creator and without one cannot exist. But by what you say then God is outside logic since you say physics explain the logical solution that God is unfettered by physics therefore can create life. There are no witnesses to God, he doesn't leave a footprint for someone to find on the beach. If God is outside physics and logic then he is utterly outside human grasp and we wouldn't have any clue what he would really be. something that exists outside physics and logic can't change the physics and logic of the world.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Buddy, read the post. Then read It again. Then read it again for good measure. If I were an agnostic, would you be happy? My beliefs are irrelevant. What we're discussing Is how evolutionists say they only believe facts and proof. Yet, what you believe has no basis in fact. Show me the evidence for trans-species evolution. Show me the "cold hard facts."

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're not listening to me. What evidence is there of God? If everything must have a creator, what is HIS creator? I asked that, and you seem to be deliberately avoiding it. Also, you asked for evidence. I gave it. If that didn't satisfy you, look something up yourself or specify what evidence you want before criticizing what I give. Want evidence of trans-species evolution? Read this: http://www.springerlink.com/con...5w6431m838132/ Also, what about primates to humans? We used to be homo erectus and others, and now we're homo sapiens sapiens. JW, did you pay attention in history or biology? edit: Humans > Primates: http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It doesn't matter. What does this post pertain to? I gave you evidence. You weren't satisfied. You didn't even explain why; you just kinda ignored it. Want me to repeat it? I will. You have yet to give evidence. Those sites just make connections. They don't even give any facts. Which is sad. Because you said you only believe the "cold hard facts" And you have yet to give me some. Instead, you try to change the subject. What I'm saying is it's absolutely impossible to prove or disprove God. However, logic shows us He exists. You just can't seem to accept defeat. You have YET to give evidence. You linked three sites, none of which contained a single fact. They were all constructed based on the assumption that you believed in evolution. They were explanatory sites. And therefore dreadfully flawed.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Those websites WERE evidence. They contained facts. I legitimately don't know what you're not getting. And no, that's not undeniable logic that God exists. Your point was that God existed, and you wanted to prove it. You want me to prove my point, when you can't even prove yours.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Okay, show me some facts. Should be easy, right? Only an illogical person can dispute this. Everything has a cause. Everything we see has causation. Leaves, trees, animals, houses, people, cars, everything has been brought into being By something else. Nothing on this earth sprung into being. Nothing. Nothing can bring about its own existence. That's just illogical.  The universe hasn't existed forever. Now, this was "proven" scientifically in the 1900's, but if you wish ill give you a logical approach to this.  Third, some being, some supernatural force, some transient being capable of flitting through time. Some thing unbound by the laws of physics and time. In short, a god, created this world.  Dispute it. I challenge you.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Okay, I can do it in a single question: What created God, the creator, if everything must have a creator?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Nothing. Why would He have to be created? Also, do you have evidence?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I gave evidence, you just chose to dismiss it because you disagreed with it. He would have to be created because you said everything had a creator. You just contradicted your own point.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Uh you haven't given Evidence... Notice how I said "everything bound by physics." An all-powerful creator wouldn't be bound by physics. Also, does anything exist before time? I don't know. But remember, this is about how you only believe "cold hard facts." What facts?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I showed you the evidence. Geez, I feel like a broken record. You chose not to examine the websites. That's your own problem. An all-powerful creator would be bound by physics. Why would it be an exception to the rule? According to God, isn't everything equal? So, He would be an equal. He would need a creator. This argument is just going in circles.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, you just don't understand anything. All-powerful. Wouldn't be bound by physics. Can do as He wants. (Thanks for capitalizing His name.) Uh there were no facts. I explained that. You are incapable of showing evidence.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You see, that's where I draw the line. How dare you call me clueless. You're the one choosing to blatantly ignore what's right in front of you, and call me ignorant for not believing in what YOU do. I respect all religions, and I don't care what they believe as long as no one shoves it down my throat, but sometimes, I disrespect the people that follow them. You're one of those people. You're calling ME ignorant when I've showed you facts, just because you don't feel like further exploring the topic. Evolution isn't scientifically proven, but there are so many facts backing it. You simply choose not to research because you don't want to be proven wrong. Believe what you want, I don't care, but calling people stupid for not seeing something the way you do is ignorant. I'm done with this argument.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ah, but I've done tons of research. And there aren't facts. Why don't you give me some facts?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ READ ABOUT IT!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://aac.asm.org/cgi/content/full/46/2/267

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The Law of Gravity is an equation: F=G*M1*M2/r^2. The theory of gravity is a hypothesis that explains why objects are attracted to each other. I didn't pull that out of my ass. I learned that in the first week of physics class which you obviously haven't taken.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, and the LAW is that gravity exists. You are incapable of seeing that. Gravity exists. It's a law. Evolution doesn't exist. It's a theory. Now, HOW it works isn't certain. Which is why it's a theory. Okay? Gravity as an entity, a force, is a law. It exists. Evolution is a theory. It also doesn't exist.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law THEORY of what causes the attraction, LAW that there IS an attraction. JSYK.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, gravity does exist. It's a law. The theory is HOW it works. The Law is THAT it works. Edit: Can you read my whole post, and not focus on a single point?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Sometimes one point is all it takes to prove or disprove something. If that point bugs them explain, not knowing what points youre making is a dangerous game in a debate.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Sometimes, however, my post contained a variety of subjects, and Gravity being a Theory or Law was a tiny aspect of it. Unless she replies, it's safe to conclude the winner of that debate.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I can understand that, but getting on someone looking for information is not a good way to get people on your side.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm sorry it's Thanksgiving and I chose spending time with my grandma that I never see and seeing my immediate family all at once and not arguing, for one day. Now that I'm back, I'll have a response. Patience is a virtue, sweetiecakes.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, I understand. Notice how I said "Unless she comes back." Well, you came back. Time to refute me?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I did. Read above^ I would like to hear your case about God now.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Just because you're the last person to say something in an argument doesn't always mean you won, it either means 1) The person ran out of stuff to defend their part in the argument 2) They already made their valid points so there's no point in arguing anymore or 3) They don't feel like arguing with an ignorant fuck anymore.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ahaha you're amazing.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

haha i love how all 3 of his points basically mean he gave up.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's also quite repetitive. He criticizes me for ignoring points, yet he ignores mine. So. People just frustrate me. :/

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Gravity is a theory, not a law. You don't know anything about science so you can STFU.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The fact that it exists is a law. We settled that. You just look like an idiot. It is a law. You're like an eighth grader in public school. Don't be so cocky.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

A theory is an assertion that explains a natural phenomenon. The theory of gravity describes why objects are attracted to each other. You were referring to the theory of gravity, not the law of universal gravitation. A law is an analytical statement like Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation: the force of gravity equals gravitational constant (G) times mass one times mass two over the distance squared. F=G*m1*m2/r^2. I don't know what you have against public school but it sure as hell got a better education at my public school than you did at whatever Evangelical brainwash institution you attend that doesn't teach you physics, biology or manners.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ooh good retort. Someone can use wikipedia. Public schools are unconstitutional, actually. Oh I know biology, far better than you, who believes evolution was proven. Btw, you have yet to give me evidence that it has.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What the FUCK? HOW ARE PUBLIC SCHOOLS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?? Whatever school you go to should be knocked down because it doesn't teach you shit. GTFU!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

LOOK 3 bubbles below. I gave you two sources.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're an absolute idiot. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Tenth amendment. Public education is NOT a responsibility of the government. Nor is health care. But that's a whole 'nother issue. You really need to learn your country.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Right, education is RESERVED TO THE FUCKING STATES or the people. STATES OR PEOPLE! As I was taught in AP US government sophomore year, things regarding health, education, election, welfare, and morals are left to the states according to the 10th amendment. The necessary and proper clause as well as the interstate commerce clause justify the federal government's involvement in things such as education (No Child Left Behind-which I hate) and Universal health care (which I also hate). By the way, I got a 5 on my AP US government exam. Just saying.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Once again, it's unconstitutional. Ignoring the fact of it's utter incompetence and inefficiency, it takes money from one to educate another. Socialistic tendencies? Department of Education, anyone? That's unconstitutional.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

you shouldnt be so cocky. just because you can memorize a paragraph in a book depicting how we dont have to do anything but pray to god doesnt make you smart. debating isnt all just how much you know. its about putting two and two together. open your eyes. Darwins finches are perfect examples of evolution. the finches adapted to their deffierent environments because the ones without the helpful mutations are going to die. Natural selection. try to copy your "answer" off wikipedia for that one. and your really just arguing. you have restated one point at least 100 times in these comments. start being rational and open minded

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because nobody has given evidence, though I've asked like ten times. Which is interesring, as they are all under the impression it is real...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

People have freaking seen it happen. Diseases change rapidly to fight of medicines, cockroaches evolve to be pesticide resistant, moths change color over generations to fit a new environment. Evolution is happening all around you. If you want to understand how God created the world study nature, God's creation, not the Bible, man's creation. Genesis was not written to be scientifically and historically accurate; it was meant to state basic theological truths about God's role in the universe.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Listen, what you just described is variation. Or "microevolution." Not macro-evolution or "trans-species evolution" Tell me, are those moths new species? Are they butterflies? Are they beetles? Heck, the Bible has nothing to do with this. This is about evolution, which isn't factual.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There is plenty of evidence that evolution is true and it is accepted by all educated people including most religious leaders. Since we can't even agree on what God is how can we prove that God doesn't exist?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Evidence!?!!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01 http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm Any biology text book in the world.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I dont get why evolution seems to be the complete counter argument against religion. So an ancient book says something that is not possible to be true, does that mean i can't believe in a supernatural force when the evidence is so blindly there if you think about it?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's a nice little argument you got goin' up there. OP, you sure are cray-cray.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

People who don't beleive in god, don't blindly follow science, if something is proven wrong then they arn't going to put their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALALALALA".

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why can't we just have both God and Science? Who's to say (if there is a God) that he didn't just make all view points so everyone has something to believe. God would have known some people wouldn't follow him so why not have tons of options so that everyone has something to believe in whatever it may be and allow for diversity.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why would a God create the viewpoint to hate him?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Not necessarily hate but disagree. people choose what degree to which they handle things. just like not all atheists and religious people hate each other, a majority of people disagree but don't hate the people on the other side of the fence.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

agreed. What i was saying is why would he create the viewpoint of hating a god?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ohai troll. I don't believe anything until it's proven. I am interested by and will entertain theories, but ironclad empirical evidence is what I need to "believe".

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Either one could be true, I grew up Christian but I'm slowly moving away from it. There are just to many unanswered questions. One of my favorites, WTF was god doing before he decided to create stuff? Playing PS3? And I'm not a big fan of carbon dating either, first off it the term just sounds dumb to me. But I'm not against what is found, as long as there is evedince to correspond with it. Both things need evidence, IMO it will be harder for a religious person to believe there is no god if/when it's proven without doubt. Then it will be for an atheiest to believe a god if/when undeniable proof of god was presented. And scrantoncity, if you are going to try and prove(on the Internet) that you are right about god, might not want to call everyones beliefs stupid. It doesn't reflect well on your, testimony. And it makes your argument seem weak, if you have something of theirs to disprove, share. Don't just dont throw insults around, that is what makes people, including mysel...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't know about anyone else, but I can't remember the last time I went to a church of science and aligned myself strongly behind a scientific theory, supporting it without proof or evidence of its claims. I don't think anyone particularly openly supports science, they simply take it for granted. Religion, however, is known for its very, exceedingly in fact, vocal supporters and an entire infrastructure of support. Thus the entire GP statement is a complete analogical fallacy. I believe in gravity because I do not float off into space. I believe in magnetism because I observe magnets sticking together. Yet I worship neither of these things. What have you observed to form a belief in god, and why should such a phenomenon warrant worship above and beyond the simple, observable facts of life. In other words, stop wasting your Sunday brown-nosing a fucking imaginary diety, you nobjockeys, and revel in the world around you. Go for a picnic. Fuck someone. Play Dungeon Siege. Travel.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Eagerly awaiting scrantoncity to post this proof of God. Should be genuinely hilarious.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Scrantoncity, you fucking moron, you didn't own shit. You've never won a single "debate" on this site yet. Your arguments never consist of anything but "because I(therefore god) says so" and "science lies"(even though there's ABSOLUTELY no reason for them to EVER do so, because it's directly counter to the whole point of science... a real scientist would rather prove something false that fake something true). Good thing the explanations that you offer people "require a minimal amount of intelligence to understand"; they're the only ones who buy it. I swear, you're like the amirite train wreck; horrible, tragic, and no one's glad to see it... but we just... can't... look... away.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

AMEN!!! I agree. You put my thoughts into words for me.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Everyone, just ignore scranton, he's a troll.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Christains base their whole lives on what one book written a thousand years ago. IMO, I don't think I should live my life based on the judgement of these people who are now dead. How do we know that these people weren't just trying to make something out of their lives so they wrote stories and put them together as the Bible and people percived it as some sacred tell-all book and that's how all of this "God" crap started? And not to mention that the people who wrote the Bible where racist, sexist, and who else knows what. And lots of things in the Bible are ignored today. Showing your thigh is nakedness. If you use birthcontrol you'll go to hell. And who follow these rules today? Not very many people. Not even a lot of Christains. And yet, being gay is a moral sin an people are still being discriminated against. I don't think I need to live my life off of some book.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's his m.o. man; he completely ignores posts he can't find a way to twist his idiocy to argue with. Generally, if he posts any links to cite sources, they're from places like god.org and bible.net; yeah, REALLY unbiased sources. Either he is truly a very pathetic and brainwashed person, or a very talented troll who has managed to create a character of the archetypical close-minded jesus freak... I don't care either way, because he spreads hate, intolerance, and misinformation. He has literally NEVER, in the many, many arguments I've seen him involved in here, conceded anyone elses points in the smallest way; his mind is like vacuum-sealed against any idea that doesn't support his beliefs. "Debating" with him is pointless, because no matter how soundly pwned he gets, it never gets through.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Holy moly have you been under a rock? I've conceded plenty of times. I'd list some, but I'm on mobile. Hmm, I spread hate? Evidence? I spread misinformation? Evidence? I spread intolerance, yeah, but only for sins as defined by our CREATOR. Get your facts straight. Why, actually, I conceded to breakfastfan a few times.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

you keep asking for evidence. LOOK AT YOUR POSTS.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

you keep asking for evidence. LOOK AT YOUR POSTS.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://www.amirite.net/283956#comment594481 He conceded here. But the rest still holds : )

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I saw the comment, and I have this to say: conceding a point that doesn't challenge yours doesn't count. If you actually admitted you were wrong that wasn't a trivial detail such as spelling, grammar, or perhaps a wrong source cited(I'm talking about admitting something you claimed was right or true indeed was not)... ever... please link me so I can see for myself and I will apologize for that part of what I said. I of course haven't read every post on the site, or even every religious post, so I could have missed that monumental event.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

scrantoncity, i might hit you in the face. evolution has been proven time and time again. religion was made to comfort superstitious old ladies and was made to bring people under one cause to create order. and if god created every living creature, then how have new species come from older species? evolution contradicts god and science contradicts religion.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Religion is not bad. Most of the time it is beneficial peaceful force. Don't hate religion as a whole because of a few jerks like scrantoncity who don't use their brains. I agree that guy is full of shit but religion has a lot to offer society and it is very important to millions of people. Don't discriminate.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

i never said it was a bad thing. order is very good. otherwise we would have idiots like scrantoncity who pulls all his info off fox news and rush limbaugh recordings. all his info is biased and thats why nobody is listening to him. BECAUSE HE THINKS HES THE SMARTER THAN THE MAN WHO DISCOVERED EVOLUTION, which by the way, IS REAL.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There is a difference between being a religious person and being a delusional asshole. Scrantoncity is the later.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm the later? No, I'm pretty punctual.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

and scrantoncity, the evidence is all in what you posted

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Im about to give a great example of evolution right here: Once upon a time there were two smart people, and they had a child, and their child had a child, and so on, but some where, a mutation occured, and eventually a child was born with out any common sense or dignity. His name was scrantoncity. The end.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Since no one likes him, he will die alone and childless and his genes will no longer pollute the gene pool and humanity will be better off! The End.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Scrantoncity, mutations are very unpredictable. Also, what's to say that how we came to be was in fact a series of mutations over a long period of time? Just some food for thought.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Is there evidence for that, or is that a guess? Huh? What is this post asking for? It's funny, sure some things make sense, but is there evidence?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

is there evidence of god? and dont give me the bible as evidence. that could have been written by a drunk philosopher for all we know.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So you admit to the fact that evolution makes sense?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, I said SOME things make sense. But, if you want, you can continue taking me out of context.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

This has really been LOLs to read. Intelligent design? Why do I eat from where I breathe and can choke as I eat? That is barely intelligent, it is simply evolved from inhaling all I need from what surrounds me to needing to chew to break down solids. I am Agnostic out of respect for others lifestyle as I am not a dick but my views are mainly Atheist but not Anti-theist. No man of science goes ape shit crazy when someone leans towards him and says he is wrong. If humans started with Adam and Eve then had kids, the Bible supports incest. Mary was a good liar and an adulterer.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ah, bringing up the good ole argument that humans aren't perfect. What's next, your complaining that our eyes have blind spots? Wanna know why your ridiculous argument has been laughed at by intelligent people for decades?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm not 100% sure that this is correct, but this is my opinion: It's true that although the people against creationism are defending themselves, their rebuttals aren't enough for the pro-creationists to be satisfied. The reason that the evidence for "scientific, non-diety events" hasn't been brought up is because nobody here understands it. I'm far from the implication that those opposing creationism are unintelligent. Generally, the math explaining these instances is complicated and advanced beyond imagination.(I assure you that I have no intention of bragging, but instead I'm trying to illustrate the scale): I'm ranked #1 in my class and have been invited to Stanford. I'm interested in particle and theoretical physics, quantum mechanics, general relativity, and such, but my dad is on a completely different level of knowledge than me. He reads articles and forums where people talk about math related to these subjects, and he understands just about none of it. (Continue)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

However, they discuss math that THEY don’t even understand. The leading pioneers in these sciences are at such a high level of intelligence that the evidence they provide can’t be posted here because nobody would understand it. I’m not sure that anyone who has an account here will ever understand it. As noted earlier in the post, I’m not even close to being close to understanding it. And I’m sure you’re far from understanding it too. TL;DR: I think there is mathematical evidence for a large number of “unexplainable scientific mumbo-jumbo”, but nobody understands the math and scientific concepts, which is why it can’t be explained. And again, I’m not 100% sure that this was correct, but I’m leaning pretty far towards it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Has anyone seen Expelled? It interviews the leading atheist/pro-evolution/big-bang scientist and philosophers as well as the leading "intelligent design is a possibility" scientists/philosophers.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't understand why so many people believe the stuff in the BIble, a book with many contradictions. Its a bit like Harry Potter dying out and in thousands of years someone discovering it and believing it's true. Voldemort is the devil, Dumbledore is God and Harry is Jesus. Sorry for HP references. I also don't see why God doesn't need a creator like everything else does. Is it just because? Well that's nice and convenient.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, it's because He existed forever. And He created time. But, you'll believe nothing exploded?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

ok i wanted to post this and see what y'all think of it, i believe in God AND evolution ok any questions?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well you obviously don't believe in the Biblical God, or else you've been brainwashed. Because any idiot at all can see the Bible says it's six literal, human days. It says the sun sets, then rises, next day. What can be clearer than that?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Any idiot can see that the bible is not supposed to be a history or science textbook. It was intended to state the basic theological truths.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Uh, no. Not true. Where in the Bible does it say that?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

well why does it have to be 24 hour days? why cant it be one million year (or something) days? He created time too, didn't He?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The Bible says the sun set, then rose, next day. It cannot be any clearer. He could've done it in any amount of time. He chose six days.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Haha, yes I remember that post; it's not much of a concession, though. He didn't say anything he actually believed was wrong, he just admitted you were right, but claimed that didn't change what he already believed to be true. W/e... anyone who blows off links to .edu sites as wrong information, while citing places like "christiananswers.(whatever)" as a viable source, is completely pointless to really argue with, as credible sources and solid, empirical information aren't familiar concepts. What he doesn't seem to understand is... scientists DO NOT simply "make things up" and call them facts(the way religious people often do)... it's just as much of an accomplishment to prove something false as it is to prove it true. Discovering one single piece of quantifiable evidence of something like evolution is a huge accomplishment. Also, other scientists wouldn't let a colleague get away with making a breakthrough based on faulty information; they'd call him out as a fraud quicktim...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Buddy, I'm starting to think you don't know anything. First off, there's more. But, if you honestly believe that I've never conceded, you're an idiot. Secondly, do you think that your sources are better than mine? If so, can you please show me the fallacy in christiananswers? Because just because it proposes an alternate view, doesn't mean it's wrong. That called being close-minded. Thirdly, which would be better, .edu, or .gov? Because here's a flat-out lie in a .gov. Here's the site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/thomasjefferson And here's the lie: "Through a flaw in the Constitution, he became Vice President," No, that was the way the Constitution was constructed. It was INTENDED to do that. It's flat-out misleading, and it's such a lie. Still believe in every website, just because it presents your side? Probably. That's why arguing with you is such a hassle. Incapable of considering it from a different, and factual point of view.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

wait... does this post say that theories require proof and evidence, but then say that atheists believe theories, which don't have proof or evidence? That's kind of contradictory...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I never said anything about any .gov site, so that whole comment was mostly pointless. Of course I know .gov sites lie; I'm the one who talks about how much the governement lies on related posts. Don't even get me started. You want to know what's wrong with a site called christiananswers? The information you get on that site all revolves around supporting your point of view. Everyone who adds something to a site like that is doing it with the express purpose of making sure the facts support your beliefs... and if they don't they're "discredited"; what I see from you is that calling someone a liar is pretty much all you need to do so. The site has a deeper agenda than providing information; it is inherently biased. As much as you'd like to say scientists simply make things up, it isn't true; science revolves around trying to prove each other wrong, pretty much. One scientist discovers something/has an idea, tests and tests to check out the validity of that discovery or i...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

... idea, and then OTHER scientists come along behind them, constantly looking for loopholes, fallacies, or mistakes. As I've said before, scientists are just as happy to prove something wrong as they are to prove it right; whatever actually advances the sum of human knowedge. They don't make the evidence fit the theory; they change the theory to suit the evidence. Therefore, sites that publish pure science will ALWAYS be better unbiased sources for information, because they're not there to further anyone's agenda. They're simply presenting information they've found to be true or likely, so far, with no embellishment that isn't perfectly clear. When a scientific site publishes theoreticals, they're always careful to label them as such, because there are some scientists that are just as much of a pain in the ass as you and likely spend a large portion of their time just hoping a rival scientist messes up so they can call them out on it. You simply can't get away with fabricatin...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

... fabricating evidence in the scientific world; basically, that's what this all comes down to in the end. On your sites, people welcome any far-fetched crackpot idea that conforms scientific discovery to your unalterable beliefs; on purely scientific sites, the argument over what's true or not never ends until irrefutable evidence is found. Surely even you have the sense to see that one method is going to produce MUCH more unbiased information, and that information that is repeatedly challenged and tested is more likely to be true than something accepted as true simply because it suits your purpose.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

P.S. You using the word "factual" is pretty amusing; thanks.

by Anonymous 13 years ago