The color blue and biology lives more abundantly for us believers than for you atheists. We know who created those things and we enjoy them much more and our life after death will amplify them even more. However, the fool has nothing to look forward to but a lake of fire--dead man walking. We know the true reality and not a diversion to satisfy our fleshly desires--temporary. So, for you to say we don't live is dead wrong. Moreover, God is the science you love so much. I know who created the eye. That wonderful super computer that defies man's intelligence. Also, God doesn't look after us no matter what, you must be in his will. You live in a world that's driven by lies and deceits and unless you humble yourself before your God--Jesus--then you will perish by the very words you proclaim are the truth. He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have looked to the fossil record for historical evidence of evolution. Most evolutionists now concede, however, that the fossil record fails to show the progressive transformation of any liviing organism into a distinctly different kind of organism. This has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists -- but they have made it clear that they will not be dissuaded by the mere lack of evidence, nor will they turn to a Creator to explain this enigma. All animals and plants appear suddenly in the fossil record and are not preceded by continuouss transitional stages. While some of these fosilized organisms have become extinct, many have persisted right up to the present time in what appears to be essentially their original form, showing only a limited range of variation. Bats, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record with no evidence of "pre-bat" ancestors. Fossil bats have all the same distinctive features we see in bats today, including extraordinarily long webbed fingers on their fore limbs and "backward" facing hind limbs. (Bat knees and toes face to the rear!) Even the distinctive shape of the bat skull, which serves to channel sound to their ears for navigation by sonar (echo location), is found in fossil bats just as it is in all modern bats. The absence of even a single example of a continuous fossil sequence showing the progressive stages of evolution of any plant or animal would certainly seem to be an insurmountable problem for evolutionism. Evolutionists have long been aware of this problem and have felt compelled to try to explain it away by any means possible, short of abandoning their faith in evolutionism itself.
This post is full of empty assertions with nothing to back it up. Go read http://www.talkorigins.org/ to see how full of shit this post is. I would also like to summarize this thread: Creationism ----------------------------- Evidence: ZERO Logical arguments by Thunderbolt: ZERO Questions dodged by Thunderbolt: Many, if not all Evolution ------------------------- Tons of evidence, start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/ Accepted by the scientific community as fact, and few aspects as theory. GOD ------------------------ Evidence: ZERO Arguments defended by Thunderbolt: ZERO Questions dodged by Thunderbolt: Many, if not all This thread consists of Thunderbolt blabbing stuff, that he refuses to back up, and ignoring everything posted by anyone opposing his viewpoints. PROOF? WANT PROOF THUNDERBOLT? Lets go back to my ORIGINAL question you NEVER answered OK? Since you claim that complex things require a creator, WHO/WHAT created/designed your creator?????????? If you answer NOTHING/NOBODY, then you concede your creator theory is illogical. peace axeman
The entire debate is pretty futile since there can be no winners or losers. Actually, several hundred pages ago, someone mentioned the book, "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins (for a perspective of how life can exist without a creator). Well, I've read that book and Dawkins book is pretty dry and many details are lacking. First of all, what right does a Zoologist have in ontology and biology? This guy reaches some conclusions that are far-reaching and outright obsurd. I'd rather hear it from the brightest minds in the field, like Francis Collings, who is the lead scientist for the Human Genome Project and is open about his faith. Others, who have shown flaws with neo-Darwinian processes, include David Berlinksi and William Dembeski -- both Princeton educated mathematicians. Then you have John Polkinghorne retiring from Mathematical Physics to become an Anglican priest. A lot of people say most scientists are atheists, but actually, if you sample the REALLY smart ones, you'll find a lot of them are open to religion and admit that science can't tackle all of these issues. As far as I'm concerned, there is too much structure and design around me to dismiss the possibility of a god. I can't prove god's existence, but I most certainly know god cannot be disproven with science and that my own beliefs seem to suit me very well.
the proof is there whether you choose to believe it or not. the problem with you morons is you have no conception or respect for REASON & SCIENCE, its basis or what constitutes PROOF. you like to think that its a toss-up or unknowable or that "anything is possible" because you mistakenly believe that this justifies or strengthens your irrational points of view or this makes you feel all warm and snuggly inside but actually this only serves to show you for the fool that you really are. not your fault actually, you simply don't have the intellectual apparatus to distinquish between the two ...and in all probability you never will. loosely defined, thats what an average moron is.
i am not going to take my valuable time and reiterate this entire freaking thread, if i thought for one millisecond that it would do any good i would but... if you don't get it then you never will. i'd say go re-read "stu", "dan", " rs7" but don't waste your time, you'll never understand, you can't, you don't have the capacity. (and don't bother with that appeal to authority crap such as "some of the best minds blah blah blah"... won't work with me bub or anyone else who has the intellectual capacity to think REASONABLY for oneself. bye now ... oh btw that proof that you deny is called MATERIAL/PHYSCIAL EVIDENCE
FasterPussycat, I'd hate to really throw a piece of metal in the gears of this great debate but, in all seriousness, you really need to go get laid and lay off the empirical science psuedo-proof bullshit. Oh, and stop taking stabs at people in here by calling them morons. Everyone is entitled to their view. Since I don't share yours, I'm a moron? What kind of stupid shit logic goes through your head, Pussy?
Brother Pussy, I think you have to bring heavier armament to this battle - I suggest you let out Protrader1 or TraderRX loose on these guys... nitro