Creationist offers 10K to anyone who debunk Genesis account in court

[Propaganda]

No you don't know where I'm going because what you said was incorrect. And it was incorrect because you based it on a false assumption.

Now to your link... is that natural evolution taking place in a controlled lab environment?

no, it wasn't incorrect. you've already demonstrated that in your subsequent replies. "Religion does have a legitimate answer for it".

and lol@the bolded. yeah, i guess if something is observed in a laboratory setting then it doesn't really count. congratulations, you've just thrown science in the bushes.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

no, it wasn't incorrect. you've already demonstrated that in your subsequent replies. "Religion does have a legitimate answer for it".

and lol@the bolded. yeah, i guess if something is observed in a laboratory setting then it doesn't really count. congratulations, you've just thrown science in the bushes.

Religion has a more legitimate answer than science.

Imagine you're taking a test and the question is "How did the universe come into existence?"

God is a much more legit answer than leaving your paper blank. You leave it blank it's 100%, guaranteed to be wrong.

0.000000000000000001% chance >>> 0% chance


And in terms of evolution, no, "recreating" it in a lab is not the same. Are test tube babies conceived the same way regular babies are as well?

 

[BlvdBrawler]

Religion has a more legitimate answer than science.

Imagine you're taking a test and the question is "How did the universe come into existence?"

God is a much more legit answer than leaving your paper blank. You leave it blank it's 100%, guaranteed to be wrong.

0.000000000000000001% chance >>> 0% chance


And in terms of evolution, no, "recreating" it in a lab is not the same. Are test tube babies conceived the same way regular babies are as well?

I was wrong. You're not a you're just a moron.

 

[Chris Mauro]

Not faith but speculation?

Come on, breh. What happened to you KNOW because of "overwhelming evidence"? Now your confidence has been reduced to "speculation"?

Religion does have a legitimate answer for it. There is a force outside of nature responsible. And to be honest, that sounds a lot more convincing than "it's magic". At least religion acknowledges a magician. Scientists will have you believe there is indeed a magic wand, but no one to wield it.



Again, both sides are in the same boat.

I was speaking on the possibility of humans creating life from non living matter and the speculation of what may have caused or started the origin of life itself. I was not addressing natural selection/evolution. I think you're fully aware of that and you're probably just trolling though.



An outside supernatural force is not needed to explain the variation of species on Earth. If one would like to attribute that to the "origins" of life itself then that's completely fine as long as long one realizes that it's speculation and not something that has been proven.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

I was speaking on the possibility of humans creating life from non living matter and the speculation of what may have caused or started the origin of life itself. I was not addressing natural selection/evolution. I think you're fully aware of that and you're probably just trolling though.



An outside supernatural force is not needed to explain the variation of species on Earth. If one would like to attribute that to the "origins" of life itself then that's completely fine as long as long one realizes that it's speculation and not something that has been proven.

I'm addressing evolution and the origins of life because evolution cannot occur without life. I'm asking you about the beginning of evolution, which yes, is the origin of life. Evolution didn't just start independently. You need a living organism, no?



And of course you would call a supernatural force speculation because you don't believe in one but there are MANY people who do and to them it would be faith.

 

[Chris Mauro]

I'm addressing evolution and the origins of life because evolution cannot occur without life. I'm asking you about the beginning of evolution, which yes, is the origin of life. Evolution didn't just start independently. You need a living organism, no?



And of course you would call a supernatural force speculation because you don't believe in one but there are MANY people who do and to them it would be faith.

You should reserve judgement until more information becomes available.


The origins of life seem to be a lot more tangible than the origins of the universe. Especially if we end up finding it on other planets.


That gap we have there could potentially close just like the many gaps that have been closed by science in the past. It probably won't happen in our lifetime but it's very possible that it could happen one day.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

You should reserve judgement until more information becomes available.


The origins of life seem to be a lot more tangible than the origins of the universe. Especially if we end up finding it on other planets.

That gap we have there could potentially close just like the many gaps that have been closed by science in the past. It probably won't happen in our lifetime but it's very possible that it could happen one day.

I should reserve judgement? When did I ever make a judgement, breh, and what was that judgement?


Let me ask you this though: Do you think you'll live to see the origins of life discovered?

 

[Chris Mauro]

I should reserve judgement? When did I ever make a judgement, breh, and what was that judgement?

Religion has a more legitimate answer than science

Religion does have a legitimate answer for it. There is a force outside of nature responsible. And to be honest, that sounds a lot more convincing than "it's magic". At least religion acknowledges a magician.

You're alluding to the fact you believe in a God (Abrahamic God of the bible specifically) that created life and the Universe.


You should reserve judgement on both ideas until legitimate evidence is presented that supports those conclusions.


And if you're just playing Devils Advocate then there's really no need to regurgitate those ideas, we're all pretty much aware of them.


Who ever manages to prove that there is a God who created life and the universe will surely win a Nobel prize.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

You're alluding to the fact you believe in a God (Abrahamic God of the bible specifically) that created life and the Universe.


You should reserve judgement on both ideas until legitimate evidence is presented that supports those conclusions.


And if you're just playing Devils Advocate then there's really no need to regurgitate those ideas, we're all pretty much aware of them.


Who ever manages to prove that there is a God who created life and the universe will surely win a Nobel prize.

When did I ever say I believed in the Abrahamic God? Find that post, buddy.

Looks like it's YOU who needs to reserve judgement here.

I simply said "God" is a better answer than .

And I don't think anyone will ever "prove" the existence of God because it is something that's faith based. You either believe in it or you don't.

My sole purpose here is to get atheists to understand their claims are just as ludicrous and baseless as a theist's claims. Both sides are dealing in faith and neither side can prove their position. So again, it all comes down to what you believe.

 

[nalej]

I'm putting up 50k for anyone that can proof there isn't an invisible pink elephant in every home at this very moment.

 

[Chris Mauro]

When did I ever say I believed in the Abrahamic God? Find that post, buddy.

Looks like it's YOU who needs to reserve judgement here.

I simply said "God" is a better answer than .

And I don't think anyone will ever "prove" the existence of God because it is something that's faith based. You either believe in it or you don't.

My sole purpose here is to get atheists to understand their claims are just as ludicrous and baseless as a theist's claims. Both sides are dealing in faith and neither side can prove their position.

And what is this "which god" talk? Most people (Abrahamic faiths) worship the same God. Greek and Egyptian gods never were claimed to be the creators of the universe. When I say "God" that's all I'm talking about. God, not gods.

You alluded to your concept of God and the creation the universe being the same God of those 3 religions.

My sole purpose here is to get atheists to understand their claims are just as ludicrous and baseless as a theist's claims. Both sides are dealing in faith and neither side can prove their position. :yeshrug

and that is why both Atheism and Religious belief are categorized as philosophies. They have nothing to do with science.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

You alluded to your concept of God and the creation the universe being the same God of those 3 religions.



and that is why both Atheism and Religious belief are categorized as philosophies. That have nothing to do with science.

Wow dude you're RRREEEEAAAALLLLLYYYYYY reaching there. I never said anything about believing in the Abrahamic God.

I do agree with your last part though. That's why I never understood the "Science vs Religion" debate. They're too different things. That's like Yankees vs. Lakers.

 

[Chris Mauro]

Wow dude you're RRREEEEAAAALLLLLYYYYYY reaching there. I never said anything about believing in the Abrahamic God.

I do agree with your last part though. That's why I never understood the "Science vs Religion" debate. They're too different things. That's like Yankees vs. Lakers.

The debate only exist because religions (if taken literally and not as just inspirational tools) intrudes in on and makes strong claims that contradict what we know to be true in scientific fields such as biology, cosmology and geologic.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

The debate only exist because religions (if taken literally and not as just inspirational tools) intrudes in on and makes strong claims that contradict what we know to be true in scientific fields such as biology, cosmology and geologic.

That's not the world I live in. I see your post count is kinda low, do you lurk here a lot? 99% of "religious" threads on this site are made by atheists trying to shyt on other people's beliefs. And it's almost never done in good taste. Just pure hate and ignorance. It's disgusting.

Everybody who believes in "stupid fairy tales" about "invisible sky daddies" written by "dirty desert savages" is "retarded, mentally oppressed and delusional."

But of course they can never back these claims up with scientific evidence because, as we just agreed, it is impossible and if you ask them about the origins of life their answer is even more ridiculous than "God". Their answer is _______.

 

[Propaganda]

Religion has a more legitimate answer than science.

Imagine you're taking a test and the question is "How did the universe come into existence?"

God is a much more legit answer than leaving your paper blank. You leave it blank it's 100%, guaranteed to be wrong.

0.000000000000000001% chance >>> 0% chance


And in terms of evolution, no, "recreating" it in a lab is not the same. Are test tube babies conceived the same way regular babies are as well?

as far the test question goes, i could write down one of the various theories about the beginning of the universe that science is exploring.

or i could just as easily write down that a giant dragon farted and boom (or bang i guess i should say), the universe was created. since putting something, anything down has a higher possibility of being true than "i don't know"/leaving it blank, the dragon's a legit answer, right?