- Joined
- Jul 19, 2014
- Messages
- 62,963
- Reaction score
- 27,366
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I understand it better than you, Quag.
Please show evidence that you understand 'logic', being rational, and the concept of 'supporting a claim'.
I understand it better than you, Quag.
The guy knows what sort of chemicals would be likely to be around in the environment of the early Earth. That is not an unknowable thing. The rocks deposited tell us what it was like back then.
[Do you consider any experiment done in a lab as having no validity in the real world????
Please show evidence that you understand 'logic', being rational, and the concept of 'supporting a claim'.
All the swamp slime evolution books were selected and edited by man.
Nonsense. The entire New Testament wasn't "The Bible" in the 1st century. They were all independent manuscripts written by different people in different places at different times.
Nonsense. The gospels were written by the same guy with a multiple personality disorder. Prove that it wasn't.
For something to exist you must provide evidence for it, there is no evidence for God, therefore he does not exist. Unless evidence can be given for his existence, based on quotom mechanics, his existence is irrelevant until he is proven to exist.
Nonsense. The gospels were written by the same guy with a multiple personality disorder. Prove that it wasn't.
<flush>
I see God let you live another day. You should thank him.
Sorry, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. That's basic science 101.
However, there are many evidences for God, Jesus, and the Bible. 400+ pages worth.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...ence-bible-god-w536-634-a.html#post1062712975
So God picks and chooses who he will kill?
Seriously what kind of God is he if he didn't off Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan etc... before their atrocities instead he chooses to off some little kid by giving them Leukemia?
Your God is a very very sick being and should be detested not worshiped.
No evidence of God just unsupported claims.
That sounds like the claim of someone who knows that if you test for the existence of God, you will find that test comes up empty, and want to avoid examining their faith.
Moderator's Warning: |
Cease with the over-the-top baiting and personal attacks. |
No evidence your claim is correct. It's just more inane blather.
Nope. Your conclusions are twisted and sick.
He doesn't know the temperature or what other kinds of elements were in that specific place. He doesn't even know what year or decade to look at. All he can do is speculate.
Sure, but trying to extrapolate back to the days of abiogenesis is pure speculation.
I found them to be quite valid.
Why do you need to know where and when it happened to the decade and the specific location?
Within a few years of the planet cooling to temperatures which allow this sort of chemistry there would be oceans where it would be happening. The man does know that these sorts of chemicals and lots of others were about, the fossil record tells us that.
It is not pure speculation. It is supported by evidence hard as rock. In fact the evidence is rock.
You know you are pushing a dead argument. You know this. Why continue?
Sorry, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. That's basic science 101.
However, there are many evidences for God, Jesus, and the Bible. 400+ pages worth.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...ence-bible-god-w536-634-a.html#post1062712975
Anyone can write about any story in any book genius. If I wanted to I could write a book about a giant unicorn in space that ate some magical beans and farted the universe out of it's ass. Just because I wrote about it doesn't qualify it as evidence of the unicorn's existence.
Science must provide checks and experiments towards everything in order to come to a conclusion. Once something is proven it is considered fact, because whenever you are to repeat the same experiment or action in another scenario or by another person the resualts will remain the same or at least very similar to the previous results.
Also in order for someone to provide a claim like: "there is a God" you must conduct some kind of experiment to prove it. If not, your claim is hallow and provides no conclusion.
I would recommend looking up logical fallacies or discrete mathematics if you are still confused.
Well, to match the Bible you're going to need some 40 different authors writing over 1,500 years, and then, if they're writing crap, get a good number of them to die for their beliefs / what they wrote.
I don't have a problem with science. What I have a problem with is pseudo-science and unwarranted inferences.
Nonsense. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God and the supernatural.
I'm not the one confused.
Although...
You have a much greater faith than a religious creationist could possibly muster.