religion

[Dior]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I've already pointed this out several times, but I don't blame you for missing it considering the length of the thread. This is also known as the infinite regression argument, and there has never been a meaningful rebuttal to it by any creationist.

Maybe they have the transitional form of god?

I do thoroughly apologize for the overstep.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Dior [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'll also like to throw in that using the "something can't come from nothing" argument essentially means that you don't believe there is a single creator that is the end all. If something can't come from nothing, then where did god(s) come from?

I know this will be ignored because you guys like doing the trolling equivalent to the "Who's On First" routine, but it still needs to be pointed out.

If God created matter he cannot reside within it. God is a spirit and is not confined to the physical laws of our universe as he is not material/physical.
This includes the laws of time. God is not constrained by time as time is a product of the physical laws that make up our universe and only affects the physical.

Therefore it can rightly be said that the Creator has no beginning and no end. He was not created.

[Dior]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If God created matter he cannot reside within it. God is a spirit and is not confined to the physical laws of our universe as he is not material/physical.
This includes the laws of time. God is not constrained by time as time is a product of the physical laws that make up our universe and only affects the physical.

Therefore it can rightly be said that the Creator has no beginning and no end. He was not created.

The Bible does not say god is spirit.

[Dior]

Well, not in the way you mean to use the word.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Cats did not evolve from dogs.


[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are on a slippery slope here.

You must show proof that a lungfish is transitional.
That is the example you gave as transitional.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Dior [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The Bible does not say god is spirit.

God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.”—JOHN 4:24.

[G13]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It has been explained about 50 different ways for you but you still dont get it. Small changes over time. Add up those small changes over a long period of time. Congrats...evolution. Nothing magical or mind blowing about it.

Never been observed

Can't be reproduced in the field

You understand that animals are "kinds" right? They have specific body plans. It's called DNA.

Cats are cats. Dogs are dogs. Cat's and dogs can't fuck and create a new type of never before species of dogcat. If the change from cat to dog took millions and millions of years of slight genetic changes (random chaotic mutations that would not produce legible genetic code), there would be massive fossil evidence of the history of all these changes

It doesn't exist

Evolution is a lie

[Pokesan]

obama

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

dear dumb motherfuckers: every fossil is a transitional fossil, you retards

Explain please how feathers were formed upon said transitional fossils.
Feathers are useless to anything but a bird.
Where are fossils with proto feathers found?

[paulgiamatti]

As far as I'm concerned, and this was my first post directed at him, Robot is exempt from a rational debate altogether since right away he declared evolution is a religion. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I suppose I will once more: This does not pass as an argument and this kind of conflation of ideas should warrant no consideration in today's society which holds itself to higher standards for very good reasons.

You don't get to participate in this discussion when right off the bat you conflate evolution with religion, and atheism with belief. These are the most basic, simple, elementary concepts I can possibly think of regarding this subject. No reasonable sentient being would listen to another word in any real debate or discussion concerning this matter. Get serious, or be left out of the conversation.