Compelling and Convincing Evidence that Life was Created! What Say You?

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
Here is a simple question:

What percentage of knowledge has science (to date) accumulated to explain all there is to know?

It surely can't be 100%, let alone even 1%. It's more like .000000001%. So how can you vehemently deny claims like the OP's when you don't even know 100%? Let alone 1% of all there is to know?

You can't prove/disprove things which you don't even know about yet.

edit on 11/16/2011 by CastleMadeOfSand because: (no reason given)

Well, at least we know how humans evolved (and that the Genesis account is 100% wrong)...but of course science doesn't have all the answers. But at least they're backing up their claims with objective evidence. Religion on the other hand is totally confusing "guessing" with "knowledge" and is often demonstrably wrong.

Well we DON'T know how humans evolved. Where is the missing link? So you DON'T know?

Again, you cannot disprove what you do not know. Who said anything about the scientific method? No doubt science backs up claims with evidence. That's common sense.

Don't lump all Christians into one group. That's like me saying science is no longer valid because 100's of scientists over the years have produced fraudulent results, manufactured evidence or outright hoaxed people, therefore, all science is deemed null and void. Make sense huh?

There is no such thing as a missing link, especially since DNA 100% confirms we evolved from species that are now extinct. It's not something up for debate unless you live in fairyland

The theory hasn't been debunked in over 150 years, and for crying out loud, we're actively using it in modern medicine to predict FUTURE outcomes accurately...something that also wouldn't be possible if the theory were wrong.

Do yourself a favor and at least read the basic Wiki article about human evolution, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about

Where is your evidence to back up your claim? No links? Anything? Wiki articles are the last place you would want to go to learn about anything. I can't believe you actually brought that crap in here.

No such thing as a missing link? WOW! You are clueless.

The burden of proof is now on your hands. Good luck with what little you have.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

And once again you try to answer the questions science can't answer (yet) with "magic" (aka god of the gaps). Even after all those threads where people told you what an argument from ignorance that is.

Well that just shows you that science doesn't have all the answers and perhaps will never find out unless they include in the molecular equation a creator behind the most complex of all creations.

However painful it is to admit that a program requires a programmer, a design requires a designer - creation requires a Creator. All of the evidence discovered by science can attest to this fact.

Unfortunately there are things that are beyond our grasp, things that our limited minds (although advance) will not be able to unlock.

But it doesn't stop us from accepting their existence.

Of course only if you're an atheist.

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Where is your evidence to back up your claim? No links?
No such thing as a missing link? WOW! You are clueless.

I noticed you cleverly skirted around providing any links or evidence yourself. Care to add some?

reply to post by edmc^2


Of course there's things science might never figure out...but given that you have ZERO objective evidence a creator exists, it's a bit lunatic to claim he/she/it does. Especially given that you get your knowledge about him/her/it from scripture...which in many cases (including the bible) is comically wrong.

Mountains look designed...yet they don't need a designer.

Humans look designed...yet they don't need a designer because we KNOW how humans evolved.

You are making a blatantly wrong statement when you claim everything needs a designer...yet you continue to repeat that nonsense

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by edmc^2

Of course they were created - we have ample evidence of their existence.

How does this fit with the bible timeline then? Why has the bible never mentioned them, considering they were around for the majority of Earth's history compared to us?

Question is why did they all of a sudden selectively disappear from the face of the earth?

Easy - a giant rock slammed into Earth and wiped them out. Those that survived were in a position to do so because of their size, hiding spots or genetic make-up. Funny though, I don't seem to remember mention of such a cataclysmic event that changed the course of Earth's history in the bible anywhere - they must have forgotten that part.

edit on 16/11/2011 by Kryties because: (no reason given)

....cause we all know Paleontology was the standard of the day. Cause we all know back then Science was on the forefront.

Yeah, a giant rock probably did wipe them out, but does that mean people back then could have possibly known that?

Great argument.

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
Here is a simple question:

What percentage of knowledge has science (to date) accumulated to explain all there is to know?

It surely can't be 100%, let alone even 1%. It's more like .000000001%. So how can you vehemently deny claims like the OP's when you don't even know 100%? Let alone 1% of all there is to know?

You can't prove/disprove things which you don't even know about yet.

edit on 11/16/2011 by CastleMadeOfSand because: (no reason given)

Well, at least we know how humans evolved (and that the Genesis account is 100% wrong)...but of course science doesn't have all the answers. But at least they're backing up their claims with objective evidence. Religion on the other hand is totally confusing "guessing" with "knowledge" and is often demonstrably wrong.

Well we DON'T know how humans evolved. Where is the missing link? So you DON'T know?

Again, you cannot disprove what you do not know. Who said anything about the scientific method? No doubt science backs up claims with evidence. That's common sense.

Don't lump all Christians into one group. That's like me saying science is no longer valid because 100's of scientists over the years have produced fraudulent results, manufactured evidence or outright hoaxed people, therefore, all science is deemed null and void. Make sense huh?

There is no such thing as a missing link, especially since DNA 100% confirms we evolved from species that are now extinct. It's not something up for debate unless you live in fairyland

The theory hasn't been debunked in over 150 years, and for crying out loud, we're actively using it in modern medicine to predict FUTURE outcomes accurately...something that also wouldn't be possible if the theory were wrong.

Do yourself a favor and at least read the basic Wiki article about human evolution, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about

Where is your evidence to back up your claim? No links? Anything? Wiki articles are the last place you would want to go to learn about anything. I can't believe you actually brought that crap in here.

No such thing as a missing link? WOW! You are clueless.

The burden of proof is now on your hands. Good luck with what little you have.

LINK

Without the theory, we wouldn't have many antibiotics or anti-viral treatments. In short, you look a bit dumb claiming I'm clueless when it's obviously you who hasn't got the slightest clue about what he's talking about

Also, how about doing some research yourself? God knows (no pun intended) that you really need it

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Humans look designed...yet they don't need a designer because we KNOW how humans evolved.

If humans were designed, then I agree with George Carlin when he essentially said that the best you could say about that designer is that he was an "underachiever." There are so many flaws and weak spots in the design that any good engineering college would flunk out whoever did it.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
Here is a simple question:

What percentage of knowledge has science (to date) accumulated to explain all there is to know?

It surely can't be 100%, let alone even 1%. It's more like .000000001%. So how can you vehemently deny claims like the OP's when you don't even know 100%? Let alone 1% of all there is to know?

You can't prove/disprove things which you don't even know about yet.

edit on 11/16/2011 by CastleMadeOfSand because: (no reason given)

Well, at least we know how humans evolved (and that the Genesis account is 100% wrong)...but of course science doesn't have all the answers. But at least they're backing up their claims with objective evidence. Religion on the other hand is totally confusing "guessing" with "knowledge" and is often demonstrably wrong.

Well we DON'T know how humans evolved. Where is the missing link? So you DON'T know?

Again, you cannot disprove what you do not know. Who said anything about the scientific method? No doubt science backs up claims with evidence. That's common sense.

Don't lump all Christians into one group. That's like me saying science is no longer valid because 100's of scientists over the years have produced fraudulent results, manufactured evidence or outright hoaxed people, therefore, all science is deemed null and void. Make sense huh?

There is no such thing as a missing link, especially since DNA 100% confirms we evolved from species that are now extinct. It's not something up for debate unless you live in fairyland

The theory hasn't been debunked in over 150 years, and for crying out loud, we're actively using it in modern medicine to predict FUTURE outcomes accurately...something that also wouldn't be possible if the theory were wrong.

Do yourself a favor and at least read the basic Wiki article about human evolution, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about

Where is your evidence to back up your claim? No links? Anything? Wiki articles are the last place you would want to go to learn about anything. I can't believe you actually brought that crap in here.

No such thing as a missing link? WOW! You are clueless.

The burden of proof is now on your hands. Good luck with what little you have.

LINK

Without the theory, we wouldn't have many antibiotics or anti-viral treatments. In short, you look a bit dumb claiming I'm clueless when it's obviously you who hasn't got the slightest clue about what he's talking about

Also, how about doing some research yourself? God knows (no pun intended) that you really need it

Again, you are linking Wikipedia. Do scientists refer to wiki when presenting evidence? NO. Who's a fool now?

Originally posted by edmc^2

Well that just shows you that science doesn't have all the answers

You're kidding right? We've been saying that ALL ALONG.

and perhaps will never find out unless they include in the molecular equation a creator behind the most complex of all creations.

Key word: "Perhaps". Meaning "Maybe", or "A Possibility" - NOT "A Certainty".

However painful it is to admit that a program requires a programmer, a design requires a designer - creation requires a Creator. All of the evidence discovered by science can attest to this fact.

Not painful at all. Except you have failed to provide proof of this so-called "programming" other than a heavily biased video, nor have you proven that the Universe is "by design". "Creation requires a Creator" assumes that a "creation" took place in the first place......so we go back to square 1.

Unfortunately there are things that are beyond our grasp, things that our limited minds (although advance) will not be able to unlock.

First modicum of sense you have made today. I don't necessarily agree with the fact we'll never unlock them, but myself, and science, can agree to the fact we don't know everything - which is the point of science in the first place, to find the answers if answers are to be had.

As an Atheist, I've noticed its just a pi$$ing contest when arguing with creationists. The big argument is "Well who made the matter in the first place so the Big Bang could occur???" And my answer is always "Well who made your god?". Don't give me the BS from the bible that he's always existed. The bible means nothing to an Atheist. Its not the divine word of your "god" to us. It's pure and utter crap. The bible cannot be used as a source of fact to argue your beliefs because there is no basis for it being anything other than fiction. Where's the chain of ownership on the authors that prove it actually came from a so-called holy person?? And don't drag out the old argument about "faith". The definition of faith is: "shut up, don't think, just believe what the pastor says is the truth. And don't forget to throw a few bucks in the bowl when it comes around.". All I ask creationists to do is take a step back and actually listen to your arguments for your beliefs. What % is based on facts? 0%. What % is based on what you are told without any proof? 100%. Why do you believe that there was ever a person named jesus? Because a book tells you so? Well I've read books that say there are werewolfes and vampires, but I dont believe it since there is no proof. Just because someone says a book was written by a so called "holy" man doesn't mean to throw out all intelligence and reason and believe what it says without question. Just a thought: Have you ever met a red-neck Atheist? Probably not, because it takes intelligence to understand the concepts of evolution and physics to form a belief system based in facts and science. Religion is easy. It requires no thought, and its so nice to hear that you are "special". You simply shut up and believe everything you are told. Like a good little sheep. Its a great scam. The person that thought it up was brilliant. Just tell the people whatever they want to hear so they "feel" good about themself and collect the tax-free money.

Knowledge can be likened to a staircase. With each step upwards, is an increase in global intelligence and science. We are on the first step as a species. We don't have all the answers. We know very little in the grand scheme of things. But given time, our collective intelligence increases and we better understand and can explain the concepts of evolution and science. 150 years ago mankind was stupid enough to think riding a horse was the best way to go from place to place. Look at how far we've come since then. Imagine how far we will have gone in another 150 years. The answers to the questions that creationists ask us Atheists to try and prove we are wrong are merely questions that science is working on and will know one day. Religion makes up answers, science proves the answers. It's easy to sit there and say "god created everything" and not have any proof whatsoever. It takes courage to be a scientists and evolutionist and atheist to say "we don't know the answer.... yet. But we are working on it". There are countless things that have been proven as scientific fact over the past 100 years that used to have no answer, and religion jumped in and claimed they had the answers. For example, in the year 1776 a woman dies during childbirth. What do people say? Well, god took her home. It was her time, etc. etc. Now thats an easy thing to say, without any proof, to make people believe you or to calm people down. No proof, just BS babble from a preacher. But fast forward to 2011, a woman dies during childbirth. We can scientifically prove what went wrong, for example the umbilical cord was around the babies neck causing the mothers heart rate to spike, etc. leading to cardiac arrest. "god" is not needed when science has the answers. Science will ultimately replace religion. 5000 years ago with the lack of intelligence we had as a species, religion was an easy fit for the unintelligent masses. But today, religion has to continually be re-written to stay current. Sorry religion, your time will eventually expire. And survival of the fittest will rid the world of all you unintelligent sheep.

reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand

Again, you are linking Wikipedia. Do scientists refer to wiki when presenting evidence? NO. Who's a fool now?

How about you switch on your brain and realize that the source articles are always listed on Wikipedia. All you have to do is click on the links

At least make an effort to deny ignorance

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand

 

Again, you are linking Wikipedia. Do scientists refer to wiki when presenting evidence? NO. Who's a fool now?

How about you switch on your brain and realize that the source articles are always listed on Wikipedia. All you have to do is click on the links

At least make an effort to deny ignorance

Right back at ya. Wikipedia. Nuff said.

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
Again, you are linking Wikipedia. Do scientists refer to wiki when presenting evidence? NO. Who's a fool now?

Actually, according to my current Uni professor, Wiki is regarded much like the old Encyclopaedia Britannica's were - a good source of general information that covers the topics generally without going into detail. [color=gold]Wiki is regarded as a decent source, particularly when they have a long line of references under the pages to back up what the article talks about. One is discouraged from using Wikipedia in essays and other detailed text, but is fine for classroom or forum interaction on the Uni websites (I do Open Uni over the Internet).

So, now that you are aware that Wikipedia information can and is regarded as general truth, you want to stop being a smartass and front up with some evidence of your own?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
Again, you are linking Wikipedia. Do scientists refer to wiki when presenting evidence? NO. Who's a fool now?

Actually, according to my current Uni professor, Wiki is regarded much like the old Encyclopaedia Britannica's were - a good source of general information that covers the topics generally without going into detail. [color=gold]Wiki is regarded as a decent source, particularly when they have a long line of references under the pages to back up what the article talks about. One is discouraged from using Wikipedia in essays and other detailed text, but is fine for classroom or forum interaction on the Uni websites (I do Open Uni over the Internet).

So, now that you are aware that Wikipedia information can and is regarded as general truth, you want to stop being a smartass and front up with some evidence of your own?

edit on 16/11/2011 by Kryties because: (no reason given)

Did you even read his link. It says NOTHING about disproving the missing link? He just googled the words he was looking for and linked it. It's pretty much a pointless link, provided to look good to prove a point.

I'm not the one making claims. The burden of proof is not on me. You want to throw factual info at me, go ahead. But make sure it's actually bolstering your opinion and not just for face value.

You guys keep shooting yourself in the foot by making ad-hominem attacks. Watch what you say.

reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand


He made the point of saying that at the bottom of the Wiki articles is a list of references, most of them are links that are clickable, that back up what the Wiki article says.

You looked at the word "Wikipedia" and discounted the rest of his post without looking at it.

Have you tried looking at the sources at the bottom of the article? (I haven't btw, I'm just asking if you bothered to look is all, or whether you just saw "Wikipedia" and immediately wrote it off).

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand

 

He made the point of saying that at the bottom of the Wiki articles is a list of references, most of them are links that are clickable, that back up what the Wiki article says.

You looked at the word "Wikipedia" and discounted the rest of his post without looking at it.

Have you tried looking at the sources at the bottom of the article? (I haven't btw, I'm just asking if you bothered to look is all, or whether you just saw "Wikipedia" and immediately wrote it off).

I'm quite aware of the links. There were a lot them. None of them so far has mentioned anything about a missing link or lack of need for one like he claims.

Your first post mentioned that you didn't even bother to watch the video? Same thing.

Originally posted by Kryties


Considering the OP seems not to care about a summary, perhaps you could provide one? I refuse to watch simply because I don't want to waste time watching something that's been debunked a million times already.

So, want to prove me wrong? Summary please.

How about....

People actually start being civil to each other?

ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics

Heed the words there.

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Your first post mentioned that you didn't even bother to watch the video? Same thing.

Originally posted by Kryties


Considering the OP seems not to care about a summary, perhaps you could provide one? I refuse to watch simply because I don't want to waste time watching something that's been debunked a million times already.

So, want to prove me wrong? Summary please.

At least I was open-minded enough to ask, TWICE, for a summary to be given before I was completely ignored and therefore had to assume what it was about. You, on the other hand, just immediately dismissed.

reply to post by alfa1


How can it be what you said earlier when you didnt even watch it lmao people amaze me.