Does God exist? (17 Viewers)

[ElendilPeredhil]

Which God or framework of belief should one choose?

To believe is hardly the 'cautious' option.

Obviously you would go with the majority. Christianity.
Are we equating 'cautious' with 'cowardly'?

Of course IMO they are all as bad as each other.

 

[KFunk]

I should be studying right now, but KFunk you seem to be willing to explore the foundations of my belief and I respect that, so I'll entertain this discussion for awhile longer.

...

By my own account, if I believe "God's existence is not bound to my belief" then would I claim that is also true when I believe it to be so? I'd say it is true or false regardless of what I believe, which is basically it rephrased.

I've come to know God, but therein lies the possibility of "I've come to know what I perceive to be God", and "What I perceive to be God is not actually God". That is most certainly the case, unless one considers the possibility of "God wants me to come to know Him", and "What I perceive to be God is close" due to experiencing His love.

If you tend towards "I've come to know what I perceive to be god" then I have no qualms. If you choose to pit hope and love against reason in order to oppose infinite resignation then all I can say is that I respect your ability to take that position (that of the 'knight of faith' it would seem), since it is one which I doubt I will ever be able to take myself. Thanks for the discussion, best of luck in your exams.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I won't deny that, even though it appears as a justified search, reaching the conclusion of nothing leads some directly to the absurd conclusion of something beyond nothing.

That's fine, but why this sort of standard where you can come up with any 'absurd' conclusion for the question of God's existance but not apply the same standard to your everyday life?

I claim to hold to veracity, yet seemingly observe the logical non-existence of God.

IMHO the problem is that you're being dishonest on at least one account. Either you've come to the conclusion that God exists or it doesn't, using logic. The only question is what sort of logic you used.

However for me, to accept nihilism would be to ultimately deceive myself.

See the problem here is that you say that logically you accept God does not exist, however you then claim that ultimately to accept that would be to lie to yourself. Even if you've come to the conclusion that God exists on a 'hunch' instead of formal logic, it still means that you do not logically accept that God exists.

Well I've made it clear that I don't hold to the infalliability of logic (without intuition).

Logic is infallible until you can show it isn't... you can hypothesize that it possibly could not, but you haven't shown it to be so. As logic works for us in our reality, I see no reason to abandon it based off an unproven possibility.

Through intuition (highly possible that it is wrong) I claim to feel God's love. I often doubt other claims too, but there is nothing lasting to be gained from such skepticism, therefore I trust out of intuition.

So because to be skeptical of such a claim, it's not as happy as believing the claim, you're willing to believe it?

Also having such "insane" faith does not entail insanity at all.

I mean faith to the point where you accept God's existance as a truth as much as I accept gravity as a truth. To me there are very few people in the world that exhibit the sort of signs I would expect people to if they held this sort of belief.

I actually do believe that we have actual free will

But what are you basing this on? Again a hunch? Your world must be quite confusing when any nice idea that pops into your head can = truth.

 

[dagwoman]

To me, religion comes from the archaic, arrogant belief that humans are more special than all other organisms on Earth and therefore couldn't have formed by fluke. Since then our knowledge of science and the universe has expanded exponentially and to me it's irrefutable that there is no higher being of any form.

In ancient days, religion was used as a tool for determining morals and social codes. If you were good, you were rewarded in some way (in Christianity, with heaven), if not you were punished (in Christianity, with hell). While people still use such beliefs to determine behaviour, many "rules" and attitudes founded from religion are extremely outdated: sexist, homophobic, etc.

To me, religion is an outdated system of beliefs. It was people's way of understanding the world around them before there was much knowledge of science.

 

[EraserDust]

The question still stands.

I'm not expecting an answer, I'm just pointing out the obvious problem with the entire idea that a cautious person would be best to believe in God as it is described by the Christian faith (or the Abrahamic faiths in general).

I won't provide a proper answer then, just my opinion. Which [loving] God? IMO God is love. If there is a loving God then simply decide to love. Love love!

IMO as a logical choice, one which promotes so called postive values and demotes negative values. This is entirely debatable as to such values being set in society, and consistently changing. In terms of eternity, one could assume that if God is truly loving, then He will understand such a choice within the "obvious problem". If God is cruel and sends you to Hell based on that choice alone, then would you have wanted to spend eternity in Heaven with Him?

IMO as a personal response, I hold to Christianity (even though it pointedly seems to have a basis in ancient egyptian belief), since the evidence for Jesus' life is sound (although the resurrection is absurd on logical grounds). I believe that Jesus is the only way to God, but many don't even have the chance to get to know him (or he is portrayed to them falsely), so assumedly a loving God would understand that. Others would claim I believe this only through my desire and upbringing. Makes sense either way.

If you tend towards "I've come to know what I perceive to be god" then I have no qualms. If you choose to pit hope and love against reason in order to oppose infinite resignation then all I can say is that I respect your ability to take that position (that of the 'knight of faith' it would seem), since it is one which I doubt I will ever be able to take myself. Thanks for the discussion, best of luck in your exams.

Thanks, I respect that KFunk. I've appreciated your insight and thoughts to this discussion. Best of luck in all you aspire to achieve.

That's fine, but why this sort of standard where you can come up with any 'absurd' conclusion for the question of God's existance but not apply the same standard to your everyday life?

Everyday life is logical with nothing to inspire an absurd approach.

IMHO the problem is that you're being dishonest on at least one account. Either you've come to the conclusion that God exists or it doesn't, using logic. The only question is what sort of logic you used.

I've come to the conclusion that God is illogical. Logically God does not exist within logical grounds. Logically, God can exist outside of those logical grounds if God created those logical grounds, based on the understanding of the creator not being limited by the creation. Syllogistic logic perhaps? (I honestly don't know much about the classification of such "sorts")

Premises: God does not exist within logical grounds.
Premises: That which does not exist within logical grounds is illogical.
Proposition: God is illogical.

*Premises: A creator is not limited by a creation [Logic].
Premises: God is a creator.
Proposition: God is not limited by His creation [Logic].

*Regarding laws, rules and principles.

Obviously this can be criticised, otherwise it would be solid proof, as such that which destroys faith. God may not be considered a creator, where He would then only be a concept, which is then bound within the creation of logic. There are other flaws I'd assume, after all I am only human, I make mistakes.

See the problem here is that you say that logically you accept God does not exist, however you then claim that ultimately to accept that would be to lie to yourself. Even if you've come to the conclusion that God exists on a 'hunch' instead of formal logic, it still means that you do not logically accept that God exists.

I logically accept that God does not logically exist. I absurdly accept that God does absurdly exist. If that poses a logical problem, try doublethink, otherwise don't worry about it. Logically nothing is worth worrying about, since by itself worry achieves nothing.

Logic is infallible until you can show it isn't... you can hypothesize that it possibly could not, but you haven't shown it to be so. As logic works for us in our reality, I see no reason to abandon it based off an unproven possibility.

Since when can anything be proven using logic alone? A computer will solve a logical problem, but there is no meaning to it without intuitive understanding. Logic works for us as long as we can comprehend it. Don't abandon it, but realise that pure logic makes you more of a machine than a human (I'm sure you're aware of that). The delusion is that it can prove anything by itself. By itself it serves to prove itself, seemingly logic supports its own veracity. I used this one before: "Every notion is debatable." That notion itself should be debatable too, logically negating itself. Obviously it doesn't logically prove the infalliability of logic, but makes you aware of the inability to prove the point using logic alone.

So because to be skeptical of such a claim, it's not as happy as believing the claim, you're willing to believe it?

Guess so, absolute skepticism destroys any notion of trust. I could even be skeptical about that, leading nowhere.

I mean faith to the point where you accept God's existance as a truth as much as I accept gravity as a truth. To me there are very few people in the world that exhibit the sort of signs I would expect people to if they held this sort of belief.

Their loss, although maybe they are content anyways. IMO faith in a loving God is terrific! Essentially losing nothing and gaining something meaningful (which to those who accept nothing, the something doesn't exist). Still I'd assume faith in anything else asides from love can potentially lead to destructive behaviour. I have seemingly "insane" faith, but I'm not by any account a fundamentalist fanatic.

But what are you basing this on? Again a hunch? Your world must be quite confusing when any nice idea that pops into your head can = truth.

Be clear on truth bearing in belief, as I posted awhile back. Obviously my belief would seem confusing if you don't understand that. An idea does not equate truth. Whether I believe or don't believe, reality will march on.

If we don't have free will, then I don't have a choice in my belief. Such a choice is merely an illusion. If we do have free will, then out of choice I believe. If it is just an illusion, then I have no way of believing otherwise.

To me, religion is an outdated system of beliefs. It was people's way of understanding the world around them before there was much knowledge of scien=ce.

Whilst I honestly don’t use God an explanatory reason for any scientifically proven concepts or even any unknown concepts, just feeling His love is a source of comfort at all times. Also I'm neither sexist nor homophobic, IMO such prejudices are seemingly archaic or even barbaric in their intolerance.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

since the evidence for Jesus' life is sound

Actually I disagree, the historical recounts of jesus's life aren't all that crash hot at all and it's quite likely imo that the story we hear now is a far cry from what it once was.

 

[EraserDust]

Actually I disagree, the historical recounts of jesus's life aren't all that crash hot at all and it's quite likely imo that the story we hear now is a far cry from what it once was.

Here we go into the reliability of the Bible, and the accuracy of Jesus' life. I'll keep this brief, since this is just going off topic and I'm spending too much time here, also nobody will be convinced of anything different to their own convictions.

I'm assuming you either mean the gospels were changed during conversation before being transcribed, or the written gospels were altered through translation. I won't deny those possibilities. Obviously the Gospels should have just as much validity as other biographies, but evidently they don't. The Gospel accounts would have been biased in favour of Jesus, so maybe the writers changed it out of bias? If so, the lessons which can be gained from them are decent, but the main message is false. The gospels do contradict on minor details, but the same main message is kept consistent. That message of Jesus' journey, God's forgiveness and love.

Apparently there is archaeological evidence (but I'm fairly skeptical here): http://www.creatingfutures.net/archaelogical.html

You can't prove that they are inaccurate, but that is not proof that they are accurate. The Bible was written by humans, and humans are falliable, which is why trust is important. The trust that mere humans could manage to transcribe without too much garbling on their part. Truth doesn't contradict itself, and neither does Jesus' lessons. Either this supposed "truth" was inspired by God, or it wasn't. Christians absurdly believe that it was. Again that is going even more off topic.

Anyways it is quite likely that the story is different. Quite likely is not certainty. I won't argue that any more since I'm aware that your point still stands. Keep arguing this if you want, but what exactly are you trying to prove? (*hypothetical of course) Seeing as Christianity has already been shown to be flawed (across the ages), and I've already claimed it as absurd. Basically it seems I believe out of personal conviction, or this base desire caused by subjective experiences caused by base desire, essentially creating a self-sustaining loop - ad infinitum. I seemingly hold to Kierkegaard's knight of faith ideal. Also I still have much to learn, I'm only freaking 18... lol I assume we're of near age though, so there is plenty more to experience. I choose not to get hooked on forums (that was in regard to me, assuming nothing at all on your part).

For the third time, I'm finished here. I've already posted my view in regard to the thread topic "Does God exist?" and explored it in further detail. So feel free to deconstruct my flawed belief, as long as it gives you satisfaction in the process!

 

[lengy]

I've attempted to logically construct an imaginary friend before. Possibly the most pointless, useless and most depressing thing I've ever attempted to do next to trying to give him positive attributes and believing he actually exists. Of course I've heard that those on a high dose of hullucinagenic (sp?) agents regularly experience dialogue with non-existent wwwwwentities, I don't think anything short of an alter state of consciousness is going to make me believe in a supernatural being.

 

[hazaar]

nope.
God no existo!

 

[Captain Obvious 1]

Westboro church members on talk show:

http://www.break.com/index/crazy_phelps_family_on_tyra.html

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Sorry to make you write all of that... but I'm more challenging the idea that Jesus (as the person) 'did not exist' at least in the form that modern christianity would claim, by looking at the oldest really 'historical' accounts of Jesus.

The authors of the bible (whomever they may be) are not good enough because they don't come 'til much later after jesus's death. As evidence of this I offer up how the modern christian story reads much like other myths of the age and how the earliest reliable historical accounts of jesus's life (unaltered) do not offer up the complete story which we see in modern christianity.

It is quite possible that there was a person like jesus, however his story was likely much different from the myth which now exists.

 

[amhay]

theres ananology that someone told me to answer the question of "how are we free and self-determining if god already knows the future...etc". think about it this way. a teacher...or a student already sorta know who does well in what subject....the teacher knows what kids study hard, which ones are changing, improving etc... but come exam time everyone still sits the exams. the smart kids dont get exempted just cos everyone reckons they'll do well and the dumb kids dont get exempted just cos the teacher rekons they shouldnt bother. everyone gets a fair go. and thats why god gives everyone a fair go even if he knows what the ultimate outcome will be...

 

[simplistic]

theres ananology that someone told me to answer the question of "how are we free and self-determining if god already knows the future...etc". think about it this way. a teacher...or a student already sorta know who does well in what subject....the teacher knows what kids study hard, which ones are changing, improving etc... but come exam time everyone still sits the exams. the smart kids dont get exempted just cos everyone reckons they'll do well and the dumb kids dont get exempted just cos the teacher rekons they shouldnt bother. everyone gets a fair go. and thats why god gives everyone a fair go even if he knows what the ultimate outcome will be...

smart thing lol
but this argument has been going on 4 centuries and only God knows when this will end ..................

why dont you people make up your mind already and stop complaining

 

[Not-That-Bright]

theres ananology that someone told me to answer the question of "how are we free and self-determining if god already knows the future...etc". think about it this way. a teacher...or a student already sorta know who does well in what subject....the teacher knows what kids study hard, which ones are changing, improving etc... but come exam time everyone still sits the exams. the smart kids dont get exempted just cos everyone reckons they'll do well and the dumb kids dont get exempted just cos the teacher rekons they shouldnt bother. everyone gets a fair go. and thats why god gives everyone a fair go even if he knows what the ultimate outcome will be...

Err.... That doesn't address the problem as the analogy is pretty weak. In one situation you have an omnipotent, omniscient God and in the other you have a teacher whom knows which students will probably perform better based on past experience....

Can you see the problem?

 

[lengy]

They're theists, they base all their logic on 'blind faith'. They are blind for a reason and even more so ignorant of the fallacies of their analogies.

 

[ch355fr3ak]

It is illogical not to believe in a God. people just follow trends, i see it everyday. Atheism is popular now, and so is believing in ghosts. people just follow what they are taught from society. people also believe that scientists are infallible, yet they are human just like you and me, subject to their own prejudice.

I mean, i used to talk alot with my atheist friend. If you believe what Darwin said in his book "the origin of species," you'd have to believe what he said about women, that they are just here to produce babies and that negroes are just dogs walking on two legs. Hitler was inspired to great cruelties through this book because he believed Darwin to be scientific and therefore right. Read Mein Kampf. so this is the man you place your faith in? if i were a woman, or a negro or a jew, i would know that Darwin is not right, yet he is portrayed in our public schools as an overall nice guy. schools provide an evolutionary view, and students are just brainwashed to believe it. Hitler himself knew how easy it was to brainwash people. he said "tell a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough and the people will believe it." The communist manifesto outlines the use o public schools to indoctrinate their students into atheism.

i wonder, who here is a computer nerd? don't you know, that someone writes those complicated codes that allow our binary systems to work, and our computers to operate? when you write a file on a disk, did that just accidentally get there? No! did you know, that the genetic code of the most simple bacterium life form puts all our high tech computers and avionics to shame? if even one letter in its genetic code were misplaced, it would be so retarted. Wait, and you believe it just occured there by accident?

i was reading a cosmology book and they said they try to identify natural traits. eg, if in the desert they find a sand sculpture of elvis, then they know it wasn't a work of nature. Ha, if nature couldn't even make something as simple as a sculpture of elvis, i doubt it cold make life spontaneously, which requires btw a long complicated genetic code, multiple, perfectly functioning protein atoms, an energy source, etc. etc. man, i know that i made my sandwich this morning, it didn't just make itself. look, just leave nature to itself, what happens? just look at the desert. Tha's right, the second law of thermodynamics, everything decays.

Many problems with evolution. okay, let's say, a dog spawns from a non-dog, (an assumption of evolutionary theory) that dog would need another dog, a female, who juist happened to evolve at exactly the same time, in exactly the same place, (and was interested). i know biology and i know that any alteration in our genetic code produces retards, not better life forms, yet evolution requires mutation. science has not yet produced a single beneficial mutation.

And why all the gaps in the chain. its not just a few links missing, the whole chain is missing! we all know i assume of the so called scientific finds that have already proven to be frauds or just sensationalism. Lucy for example, was a monkey, and its discoverer knew this. he had already discovered it days before he announced its existence. But when time was running out and funds were almost gone for his expeditions, he suddenly claimed lucy was man's ancestral missing link! guess what, he got lots of money. just in the nick of time aye?

Piltdown man, which was a fraud! it was constructed artificially, buried and then "discovered." oh and the gullibility of the scientific community in hailing this as a missing link. still think they're objective and unable to be duped, who deeply analyse everything first? no, they conform evidence to what they elieve, just like everyone else. should i continue?

Some were just real people with arthritis. no skeleton of man's supposed ancestry is complete. Neanderthal, is the only exemption, and it is evident that he was just a normal man. eskimo skeleton's resemble him alot.

Human footprints were found in a riverbed in the united states, right next to, and even stepping in dinosaur footprints. it looks like they were trying to run away from something. how can that be? any scientist, say it was a martian scientist, would have concluded that the creatures to whom the footprints belonged lived in the same era. when a scientist was asked on TV what he thought about the find, he said he finds nothing here to disprove evolution. what the cameras didn't show was that he had refused to even look at the footprints which clearly show that dinosaurs and human co-existed. Indians hunted them! on their cave drawing they show clear depictions of various dinosaurs, and them killing them. the word dinosaur wasn't invented until the modern era. before that, they were called dragons and if you killed one, you were a hero.

and for you who say dating methods!, listen to this. a bunch of scientists gave a carbon dater a dinosaur bone of a brontosaurus but they didn't tell him what it was. when they asked for how old it was, he said thirty thousand years old. they asked him if he was sure and he gave them a contemptuous looks, much like nerds who think they're so hard and so smart do and said he was positive. but aren't dinosaurs supposed to be millions of years old? they also tested a live snail, and got a reading of 3000 years old! yes it was still alive. that's one old mollusk. moon rocks were tested at various institutions, and got figures between 100 million to 3.5 billion years old! wow, very accurate. man, i can't go one, there are so many things i want to say.

but no, look it up for yourself. "seek and ye shall find." "the truth shall set you free." do not be blinded by your own prejusice. if you think you're so smart, don't. "perceiving themselves to be wise they became fools." "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." "For God hath made the foolish things of this world to confound the wise." to all you athesits, you don't even believe that your sandwhich made itself, yet you would claim that we, no, i'll make it even less complicated, the simplest bacterium, which puts all our high tech marvellry to shame, was just the consumation of random events. you have been brainwashed by the public education system. i go to one, and know of the great science they teach. it only takes 0.005% of rat poison to kill a rat, 99.5% of it is good food. just like our schools. 99.5% of it is good science but it only takes that tiny amount of evololutionary brainwashing to confuse the population, and make them believe that there is no God.

 

[KFunk]

Some replies to the points you have made:

- Whether or not something is trendy has little, if any, bearing on whether or not it is true.

- Speaking about darwin you confuse biological meaning with more personal social meanings. Biologically we may have the function of propogating our species but this perspective makes no attempt to deny the existence, or importance, of our cultural practices or value systems. More importantly, making a link between a concept and hitler does not prove it to be evil (look up the internet fallacy, Reductio ad Hitlerum).

- If you think that the alteration of a single nucleotide in the genetic code of a bacterium (or a more complex life form) will lead to drastic malfunction then you need to read up on the subject before you attempt to speak on it with authority..

- You claim to know biology and then you say that it is possible for a 'dog to spawn from a non dog'. At the level of mammals changes occur very slowly, e.g. you get a drought leaving less fruit on the trees and, as a result, the taller animals who can reach more fruit survive while some of the shorter ones starve and die. While some shorter animals remain, the gene pool is then biased in favour of taller animals (have you ever noticed how tall people tend to have tall children?). The result is that the next generation of animals is slightly taller than the last. None of this oyster born from cuttlefish crap, just think gradual changes.

- Faked evidence does not show the theory to be wrong, it simply shows that some individuals are either crazy or desperate to gain recognition for a discovery. The same deal occurs with religious artifacts (a million and one items that have touched the hands of jesus) but do you use that to debase religion? I should hope not, because that would be poor reasoning.

- Your claims about indians hunting dinosaurs and 3000 year old, week old snails sure rock the boat of some of these theories. However, I would be interested to see some evidence for these claims. Surely at least one article would have been published in a paleontology journal if your dinosaur claim is true. (out of curiousity, through what source did you hear about this?)

Finally:

- Evolutionary theory does not clash with the concept of god, they can very easily go hand in hand. The issue is that it clashes with events described in the bible. My question to you is this: how can you have so much faith in the accuracy of a text which has been edited, changed and translated so many times? Even if god exists, why would you trust people when they say that what they preach is the word of god? Doesn't their fallible nature as human beings worry you?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It is illogical not to believe in a God.

... I can't wait for this one.

people just follow trends, i see it everyday. Atheism is popular now, and so is believing in ghosts.

Atheism is popular? Maybe in some parts of youth culture but it's really not that big... as for believing in ghosts, well I don't believe in anything normally called 'supernatural' so I guess maybe I'm not following the trend.

people just follow what they are taught from society.

From a very young age we are taught about heaven, hell and jesus... christianity permeates throughout all Australian society in a very drastic way... I'm so ignorant I didn't even know what the word 'atheist' meant until religious studies classes in high school.

people also believe that scientists are infallible, yet they are human just like you and me, subject to their own prejudice.

Such people are idiots... however I think you'll find you're misplacing their belief that the scientific method is infallible with scientists themselves.

I mean, i used to talk alot with my atheist friend. If you believe what Darwin said in his book "the origin of species," you'd have to believe what he said about women, that they are just here to produce babies and that negroes are just dogs walking on two legs.

Ok wait... first of all your atheist friend believes that women are just here to produce babies and 'negroes are just dogs walking on two legs' ?

Secondly, considering the time darwin was living in I think if you did some research into it you would find he was quite sympathetic of black slaves and acknowledged them as people. He did probably believe that europeans had an inate intelligence above blacks, but given his time even acknowledging them as the same species was quite liberal.

Thirdly, No - Just because darwin said it doesn't mean I have to believe it... I believe in the theory of evolution as modernly stipulated - nothing more.

Hitler was inspired to great cruelties through this book because he believed Darwin to be scientific and therefore right.

Hitler also started the first non-smoking campaigns... ZOMG EVIL

Read Mein Kampf. so this is the man you place your faith in?

No.

if i were a woman, or a negro or a jew, i would know that Darwin is not right, yet he is portrayed in our public schools as an overall nice guy.

........I don't know whether any school would bother talking about what a 'nice guy' he is.

schools provide an evolutionary view, and students are just brainwashed to believe it.

As is the scientific consensus of the planet earth..

Hitler himself knew how easy it was to brainwash people. he said "tell a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough and the people will believe it." The communist manifesto outlines the use o public schools to indoctrinate their students into atheism.

sigh....

did you know, that the genetic code of the most simple bacterium life form puts all our high tech computers and avionics to shame? if even one letter in its genetic code were misplaced, it would be so retarted. Wait, and you believe it just occured there by accident?

No... natural selection removes alot of the 'randomness' from evolution.

i was reading a cosmology book and they said they try to identify natural traits. eg, if in the desert they find a sand sculpture of elvis, then they know it wasn't a work of nature. Ha, if nature couldn't even make something as simple as a sculpture of elvis, i doubt it cold make life spontaneously, which requires btw a long complicated genetic code, multiple, perfectly functioning protein atoms, an energy source, etc. etc. man, i know that i made my sandwich this morning, it didn't just make itself. look, just leave nature to itself, what happens? just look at the desert. Tha's right, the second law of thermodynamics, everything decays.

This is a really bad argument... you see the problem is you're saying 'Well I just KNOW that this stuff is man-made (this 'knowing' is actually because you think to yourself 'that's like something I would of made, or i've seen made) - That can't apply to 'nature' where you don't know what made it by such quick analogy.

Many problems with evolution. okay, let's say, a dog spawns from a non-dog, (an assumption of evolutionary theory)

Actually what would happen is for example... one colony of dogs lives in the desert (they have sandy coloured fur) then half of them go off to the jungle... over time the ones in the jungle will change their colour to match in with the jungle... then further over time their physical structure will change to help them adapt to life in the jungle.

i know biology and i know that any alteration in our genetic code produces retards, not better life forms, yet evolution requires mutation.

lol you expect a random mutation to all of a sudden have super-powers or something? You DON'T know biology - never say you do again.

And why all the gaps in the chain. its not just a few links missing, the whole chain is missing!

Actually the human fossil record is... pretty extensive.

Lucy for example, was a monkey, and its discoverer knew this. he had already discovered it days before he announced its existence. But when time was running out and funds were almost gone for his expeditions, he suddenly claimed lucy was man's ancestral missing link! guess what, he got lots of money. just in the nick of time aye?

Hello kent hovind, how's the tax fraud going?

Piltdown man, which was a fraud!

Proven a fraud by evolutionists - not creationists.

Neanderthal, is the only exemption, and it is evident that he was just a normal man.

--'

Human footprints were found in a riverbed in the united states, right next to, and even stepping in dinosaur footprints.

No.


I've had enough with you, I have to go to work... --'

 

[lengy]

Basing his counter-arguments and not-even-half researched arguments. Get the facts straight before you even attempt to try and reason against Atheists.

 

[Charli-lou]

Yes He does...


Freekin Athiests ur worse thn us Christians at tryin to assimilate ppl to ur beleifs (or lack thereof, gooooosssshhhh) ...pfft why do u even care...haha...why does it frusturate u if i beleive in God???

(aS I cannot use expression in posts i apologise if this sounds abrupt or rude...not aT all my intention, it just fascinates me this topic and how ancy ppl get about it)