If the universe requires a creator then the creator should require a creator = religion is made-up - Chess Forums - Page 31

gopher_the_throat

Sep 7, 2015

0

#601

alex, I admit I haven't read every post. Can you tell which page to look at to see your extremely detailed explanation. Thanx

Raspberry_yoghurt, obviously someone on that planet was interested ion rock.

17rileyc

Sep 7, 2015

0

#602

alex-rodriguez wrote:

In 1859 Charles Darwin killed the childish Magic Man fantasy.

"Darwin was the first to use data from nature to convince people that evolution is true, and his idea of natural selection was truly novel. It testifies to his genius that the concept of natural theology, accepted by most educated Westerners before 1859, was vanquished within only a few years by a single five-hundred-page book. On the Origin of Species turned the mysteries of life's diversity from mythology into genuine science."

-- Jerry Coyne, University of Chicago biologist, author of Why Evolution Is True

Darwin himself doubted certain parts of the theory of evolution. He admitted that it is absurd to believe that the eye could have been formed by natural selection: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." -On the Origin of Species

17rileyc

Sep 7, 2015

0

#603

alex-rodriguez wrote:

17rileyc

Quote mining is dishonest. You leave out the rest of it. Provide a link so we know what you're lying about. The link should include the paragraph that follows what you copy and pasted from a dishonest bible website.

Without a link from a real science website I can correctly assume you're a liar. You might even be lying about what you dishonestly quote mined. Mr. Darwin was totally behind his discoveries. And the scientific progress since Darwin has been thousands of times greater than what Darwin discovered.

If you copy and paste stuff from professional liars that makes you a liar. The problem with being a liar is everyone knows you're a liar.

By the way this is the 21st century. Why are you quoting a 19th century scientist? Do you think there's been zero scientific progress the past 200 years?

Try to be current, and try to not be dishonest.

Also, it wouldn't kill you to educate yourself instead of making a fool out of yourself.

Evolution is the strongest fact of science supported by thousands of powerful evidences from DNA sequencing.

But if you want to be equal to a flat-earther you go ahead and do that. Just don't complain when people point at you and laugh.

By the way the eye thing. What you dishonestly left out was Darwin's explanation for how the eye evolved.

One more time - stop being a liar.

Wow, seriously? Not every fact that you don't approve of is false. If you call me a liar, then you are calling Darwin himself--the very man who came up with the theory you are defending-- a liar as well, which pretty much renders your argument illogical. As to why I am quoting a 19th century scientist: like I said, he came up with the theory of evolution. You calling me out for that would be like if pointed out something contradictory about Jesus and me telling you to stop using outdated information. And evolution is definitely not the strongest fact of science. In fact, it is one of the most controversial facts of science.

17rileyc

Sep 7, 2015

0

#604

You continually tell others to educate themselves, when you show time and time again that you yourself are uneducated. You can get to the point without hypocritically insulting others.

chessterd5

Sep 7, 2015

0

#605

alex-rodriguez wrote:

"And evolution is definitely not the strongest fact of science. In fact, it is one of the most controversial facts of science."

Just because uneducated god-soaked people think something is controversial, that doesn't mean it's controversial.

Also, what part of "supported by thousands of powerful evidences from DNA sequencing." don't you understand?

Try to learn something. It won't kill you to educate yourself.

There are no powerful evidences from DNA sequencing. Because there are no missing links. The closest DNA sequencing has ever came is adaptation of species. This particularly involves LABORITORY INDUCED MUTATIONS of bacteria that usually don't live and cannot reproduce by themselves.

The_Ghostess_Lola

Sep 7, 2015

0

#606

Foget about evolution for a second....I just wanna know how life first formed, how the arrow of time is affecting the life of our dying sun, where all the matter came from in the Big Bang, you know.....small stuff like that.

Any smart people have any answers ?....Thanx........

17rileyc

Sep 7, 2015

0

#607

The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

Foget about evolution for a second....I just wanna know how life first formed, how the arrow of time is affecting the life of our dying sun, where all the matter came from in the Big Bang, you know.....small stuff like that.

Any smart people have any answers ?....Thanx........

This is a valid point that I brought up earlier. I believe the response I got was something like: "we do not have the capacity of knowledge to know the origin of the universe yet." And yet people who believe in a deity have this knowledge and has for a long time.

Colin20G

Sep 7, 2015

0

#608

reminder:

Both evolution theory and big bang theory are the works of devout christians in the first place. It is incredible that they are so often used as arguments by atheists, in order to convince religious zealots who anyway think that the earth is 6000 years old.

Colin20G

Sep 7, 2015

0

#609

I had never seen DNA denial before. You guys made my day!

FRENCHBASHER

Sep 7, 2015

0

#610

The_Ghostess_Lola a écrit :

Foget about evolution for a second....I just wanna know how life first formed, how the arrow of time is affecting the life of our dying sun, where all the matter came from in the Big Bang, you know.....small stuff like that.

Any smart people have any answers ?....Thanx........

Seriously : Stephen Hawking book , A Brief History of Time

Pb : here are no pics in.

Seriously too : nobody answers : who came first : Hen or Egg? first?

why ? because the question is easy and the answer too !

chessterd5

Sep 7, 2015

0

#611

alex-rodriguez wrote:

"For all of those who do see the overwhelming evidence of natural selection and life's descent from ancestors, and the immense span of time over which the story of life unfolded, it is, to put it mildly, baffling how so many still do not. It is absolutely astonishing and often infuriating that some take it so far as to deny the immense foundation of evidence and to slander all the human achievement that foundation represents."
-- Sean B. Carroll, professor of molecular biology, genetics, and medical genetics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, author of The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution

Translation: I will believe what I'm told. I refuse to think for myself, & I will continue to bow down at the altar of secular humanism & evilution like a good little sheeople. Because if I ackowledged that

1) There are no missing links, therefore I honestly can't use the fossil record as proof.

2) We can only create mutations in bacteria in a lab setting & only for a minute life span.

&3) That 20 individual amino acids had to form by themselves, arrange themselves by themselves, & continue to replicate themselves by themselves someone may truely think about the "evidence " .

ilikecapablanca

Sep 8, 2015

0

#612

@StarryZigdust

????!!!?

ilikecapablanca

Sep 8, 2015

0

#613

It would be poetry if it had prose or rhythm...
But I must confess...
It causes me confusion...

ilikecapablanca

Sep 8, 2015

0

#614

See ya.

Raspberry_Yoghurt

Sep 8, 2015

0

#615

Colin20G wrote:

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:

We go to another planet.

We find two objects

and

Think a bit about it and then let me know your thougts on this.

I go to earth. I find one object:

It's impossible that it is a coïncidence! Odd is 1/1 000 000 000 000 !!! so God has been created! QED

Convincing indeed!

FRENCHBASHER

Sep 8, 2015

0

#616

ZigyStardust a écrit :

@ilikemike

do u like my ebook? i think it can be a best sellers

THE GOOD BOOK IS STILL A BEST SELLER as said Armstrong, Louis Armstrong.

* yes said Armstrong, Neil Armstrong first on the moon, but there are no pic's in.

** and truth, fisrt man in Space, Youri said 1961, "i've been around earth during 64 minutes in space orbital flight, and I didn't see any Creator". (FACT, historical).

Raspberry_Yoghurt

Sep 8, 2015

0

#617

chessterd5 wrote:

alex-rodriguez wrote:

"And evolution is definitely not the strongest fact of science. In fact, it is one of the most controversial facts of science."

Just because uneducated god-soaked people think something is controversial, that doesn't mean it's controversial.

Also, what part of "supported by thousands of powerful evidences from DNA sequencing." don't you understand?

Try to learn something. It won't kill you to educate yourself.

There are no powerful evidences from DNA sequencing. Because there are no missing links. The closest DNA sequencing has ever came is adaptation of species. This particularly involves LABORITORY INDUCED MUTATIONS of bacteria that usually don't live and cannot reproduce by themselves.

Whadya mean with missing links?

Missing link was originaly use by creationist to describe that no fossils of middle forms between humans and the modern apes was found.

Since then they found tons of them, they have entire trucklods full of middle form bones, so many that it's complicated to sort out the family tree early homonoids.

If creationists thought like nornal people they would have went "well, ok we complained there was no missing link, but now there is, so lets stop complaining, since it has been fixed, and since normal people do not continue to complain about problems that dont exist anymore because they have been fixed.":

Yet they are still moping about missing links 50-60 years after they found them :)

Raspberry_Yoghurt

Sep 8, 2015

0

#618

chessterd5 wrote:

alex-rodriguez wrote:

"For all of those who do see the overwhelming evidence of natural selection and life's descent from ancestors, and the immense span of time over which the story of life unfolded, it is, to put it mildly, baffling how so many still do not. It is absolutely astonishing and often infuriating that some take it so far as to deny the immense foundation of evidence and to slander all the human achievement that foundation represents."
-- Sean B. Carroll, professor of molecular biology, genetics, and medical genetics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, author of The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution

Translation: I will believe what I'm told. I refuse to think for myself, & I will continue to bow down at the altar of secular humanism & evilution like a good little sheeople. Because if I ackowledged that

1) There are no missing links, therefore I honestly can't use the fossil record as proof.

2) We can only create mutations in bacteria in a lab setting & only for a minute life span.

&3) That 20 individual amino acids had to form by themselves, arrange themselves by themselves, & continue to replicate themselves by themselves someone may truely think about the "evidence " .

WTF is this nonsense.

Science has interted the gene for green fluorescent protein (GFP) into mice, therewith creating fluorescent mice. Not just for fun, but because it is useful in experiments. The gene is originally from a jellyfish.

You can order some fluerescent mice here if you want them https://www.jax.org/strain/018306

ilikecapablanca

Sep 8, 2015

0

#619

So, where'd God come from?

ilikecapablanca

Sep 8, 2015

0

#620

Ah... I see where you're going now...

So, something happened to nothing, which created God, who created us? What?