so with a swift wave of his hand aphex, the eternal idiot, dismisses a an informational website as complete bs simply because it entirely discredits his position. great going buddy! of course, if aphie really had something, wouldn't you think he'd have answered at least a few of the questions i put to him about his alleged creator? seems reasonable, but no, aphie just returns to his tired old, completely discredited, cut and paste, creationist rhetoric. (and then has the audacity to say the atheists arguments are full of holes. ahh, he's such a character our little aphie)
That last paragraph is exactly where I do and always will stand. With regard to people using God as an excuse for doing what they want, are you suggesting that God did not really tell Reggie White to play in Green Bay (as White claimed)????????
Here's is a little more "POOF" for Aphex Why not try this idea In the first instance, like the nothing you were going through before you were born, the same was the case for the Universe. There was in fact Nothing. (Even the most devout christian would say "in the beginning was nothing".) We only get a conceptual view of what nothing is like by existing in the here and now and imagining what nothing was to us before we were born Not hard to get your head around that Aphex? Quantum principles show that the "existence" of nothing, that is no time, no matter of any kind, no space (there has to be no space if there is nothing), is unstable and such a state decays. These boffins of the Quantum world are looking at the very something from nothing theory. Positive energy found in matter is balanced against the negative energy of gravity, so the total energy is zero. (Einstein ... sooooo cool) It would take no net energy to create a universe under such principles. Now I for one want to know a lot more but these weirdo scientists once said it was possible to first understand the concept of and then demonstrate the creation of electricty. Crazy eh? Clergy didn't like the sound of that, declared it to be unnecessary and "UnGodly". How many religious god followers think they should denounce science now for discovering electricty? Oh but they would do just that very thing Once they saw it was a fact they call it a gift from god. That kind of hypocrisy is their speciality. Quantum science could soon be demonstrating the very priciple of the free lunch.. The something from nothing start to the universe. And instead of just talking about it they will want to demonstrate it. I get a lot more satisfaction for my need to know doubts and questions from science, than the crazy world of the "jesus please us" gang. Your god is going to find no place to sit down in soon. Just denying everything you see in the meantime to defend a weak argument is a futile unimaginative way to spend an existence. Just think of it, if you're lucky, someone may be able to really answer the big one before you start trading . You can bet it will be a scientist that does it though. You already have the only answer the god brigade can offer you. But then again some folks still don't admit the electricity theory works
The thing is 'Boat, you either believe in god or you don't. You might not like having the "stigma" of atheism attached to you, but if you don't hold a positive belief in "god", you are an atheist. Atheism is simply the absence of a positive belief in theism (ie, "god"). You either hold such a positive belief, or you don't. There's really no middle ground.
PROVE IT! Show the transition. Secondly, scientists have bones of mankind dating back 6000 years--and there is no difference between those remains and our bodies today. If evolution is to betaken seriously, then don't you think there might be SOME change in 6000 years? And don't give me that billion year crap. The bible dates back about 6000 years and so do the remains of man--end of discussion.
ok, you're obviously too caught up in trying to prove your religion to be true (what a hopeless task that is!) to see what is pretty obvious to everyone else, BUT YOU ARE THE ONE WHO INTRODUCED EVOLUTION TO THIS THREAD YOU JERK!
what do you mean "show the transition"????? the skeleton has features common to man and features that would be described as "ape-like". BOTH. what more could you want in a transitional fossil??? and if you really think that man only dates back 6k years...well, buddy, i really think the last remnants of hope for you in this life have just vanished. anyone believing that 'young earth' crap seriously needs their head examined.
Prove it. Those bones show NO transition at all. It's a diversion. My previous posts have already pointed that out. Also, give me a link to a site that states there are bones over 6000 years.
how exactly would you like me to prove it to you? you want me to come to your house and bring you the skeleton so you yourself can examine it? i'm asking you a very simple question. what would you accept as proof of a transitional fossil IF NOT the common attributes of two different "species" (i'm using a layman's defintion of species here)?