Religion/Spirituality what's with all the atheists on the coli?

[Berniewood Hogan]

trillions of things having to work together.

HAVING JUST READ SOME ESSAYS ON MULTINATIONAL FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS, THE HULKSTER IS WELL ACQUAINTED WITH THE CONCEPT OF NUMBERS AS LARGE AS THE TRILLIONS, BROTHER! SO IT SHOULDN'T BE DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO SHOW ME THE MATH YOU DID TO REACH YOUR CONCLUSION ABOUT PROBABILITIES, DUDE! YOU DID DO SOME ACTUAL MATH AND WEREN'T JUST FLEXING YOUR HYPERBOLE MUSCLES, RIGHT MEAN GENE?

 

[Blackking]

HAVING JUST READ SOME ESSAYS ON MULTINATIONAL FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS, THE HULKSTER IS WELL ACQUAINTED WITH THE CONCEPT OF NUMBERS AS LARGE AS THE TRILLIONS, BROTHER! SO IT SHOULDN'T BE DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO SHOW ME THE MATH YOU DID TO REACH YOUR CONCLUSION ABOUT PROBABILITIES, DUDE! YOU DID DO SOME ACTUAL MATH AND WEREN'T JUST FLEXING YOUR HYPERBOLE MUSCLES, RIGHT MEAN GENE?

naw, I'm not a chemist... but I can read. People have researched it so I wouldn't have to go through that. Is what I stated untrue? And I did like that video though.... it wasn't based on weak ass theories that made this 42 pages.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

Is what I stated untrue?

WHERE IS YOUR MATH TO SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSION ABOUT PROBABILITY, BROTHER? WHERE IS ANYBODY'S MATH TO SUPPORT THAT IDEA, DUDE?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Double entendre......don't ask me how.​

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

How exactly does the varied forms of abiogenesis that are all merely Scientific hypotheses = fact?

Especially when those studies and hypotheses are sparked by a predetermined assumption - aka life forms from chemicals only with no force or consciousness initiating anything. You can only be a "fool" if you deny a fact, like "some dogs bark"/ A person simply having a different opinion isn't the fool.

I've read that wiki article. The Early conditions section is all over the damn place and doesn't conclude much... it just states varying ideas on it and assumptions. After the longest few paragraphs of struggle arguments... it simply states " There is no "standard model" of the origin of life"





In reference to the origin of the organic molecules referred to the in baseless struggle arguments...

1. Terrestrial origins –Some how shock waves or electric sparks flying around created organic material.... OR
2. Extraterrestrial origins - shyt flying around in outer space with organic matter on it, lol... that landed on Earth. I swear they are trolling like crazy - because that would only lead one to say " so ummm how was that matter created from inanimate matter?" And "wouldn't that theory end the life on other planets debate considering the objects weren't even targeting earth.."

Then the rest of the article goes on the state 600K conflicting theories about how life formed--- But transparently ALL with the same end idea/assumption in mind.


We know most life on Earth is carbon based.. the atheist on here were saying it was 100% based in carbon, but I said naw... Anyway, all we really know is that most organic compounds come from already living material. When people say we are all a part of the universe they aren't just being spiritual, they are correct. However, there hasn't been anyone that can come close to showing life coming from inanimate material. Usually science has at least 1 leading and accepted theory.. this has none, just crazy struggle arguments that support the preconceived notion of no consciousness at the start of the universe.

We are discussing the origins of life by studying organic materials. There is a reason that organic doesn't mean life.


so you read scientific America and they state the obvious...


So we just make shyt up to force a point. Make shyt up we don't/can't demonstrate, or prove.




So we know exactly what life is.... .but reality doesn't fit scientific dogma...... so lets reject the obvious for ideas that we can't prove..... Then clown others for ideas they can't prove.

1. plausible deniability keeps science from making objective statements. It NEVER makes objective statements, and never should. This is where the evidence points to. Science never states facts. It states where evidence best leads. Thats the problem with 90% of your post. No one knows anything about anything to 100%. Thats whats so hard for you all to understand.

2. Energetic transfer in specific types of bonds explains the complexity of life far better than you looking up points to debunk shyt you don't even understand. Holler at me if you can at least get a B in biochemistry.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Double entendre......don't ask me how.​

This rests on a logically fallacy theists use call the "blind watchmaker" argument.

 

[intilectual recipricol]

Here's the problem. People who deny accepted scientific theories, as shown here, have such an awful understanding of the theory and literally zero grasp of the evidence, they dont need us to tell them what it is in a couple posts, they need to take a damn class at the local college... or high school. Yall are trying to argue stuff I knew better to argue against back in 95. There is no excuse for an adult in 2013 to be making these arguments and posting these absurd statements.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

This rests on a logically fallacy theists use call the "blind watchmaker" argument.

Joke went right over your head.

​

 

[Bondye Vodou]

Well. My answer should have given you a clear answer. My creator is the universe. There is no doubt the universe created everything around me. God is the universe, the universe is god. What is a god? A being that created all things, that pretty much sums up the universe. We only know 2% of the known universe, for all we know, it's conscious. After all, it created that too. It's a living organism ever growing and evolving.

However, there are rules within the universe, and gravity is one of them. So no, I don't believe someone walked on water.

The Universe? bbbbut i thought it was sum magical cac in the clouds waiting to smite nikkaz for premarital sex.

 

[intilectual recipricol]

The Universe? bbbbut i thought it was sum magical cac in the clouds waiting to smite nikkaz for premarital sex.

word. dont forget that he demanded we cut the tips of our penises off... even though he made us with penis tips...

 

[Bondye Vodou]

Eh, believe in a god. But i can't believe in religion. God didn't fax the bible/koran/torah down word for word. Someone wrote that shyt, and people can alter what was written for their own benefit, and there's too much bad blood because of it. God doesn't kill people. You and I kill people.

Exactly these religious dweebs make me fkin sick out here

these jewish rabbis out here sucking circumcized baby dikks & I'm pose to take there religious texts seriously? nah bruhs that ish is man made

 

[Bondye Vodou]

word. dont forget that he demanded we cut the tips of our penises off... even though he made us with penis tips...

Lol these idiots won't understand what you're tryna say tho

 

[rapbeats]

Sorry if someone already responded to this but I gotta put in my two cents here. Its funny because this is exactly the example I use against believing in the bible.

We believe george washington was the first president because we trust historians. We believe the weatherman is telling the truth because we trust meteorologists. We believe the atom is composed of electrons encircling a nucleus because we trust physicists and chemists.

Likewise, when the bible says Jesus gave a sermon about how to live a happily life, I believe that. Its a historical account of the past.

But when you say Jesus walks on water, I do not believe that. Why? Where do I draw the line? I draw the line when a book makes claims in which it cannot explain how its possible for such a thing to happen. How is it even possible for someone to walk on water? Because he is god? What evidence is there that a god exist? No amount of historical accounts or eye witness testimony is enough to reasonably believe in the divinity of jesus.

Likewise, if billions of people also believed that george washington was 300 feet tall, I wouldn't believe it. Why? Because there's no evidence for how that's even possible. No amount of historical accounts or eye witness testimony is enough to reasonably believe in a 300 feet tall GW.

you have faith in historians because?????
how do you think historians prove things were what they were? i mean here we are talking about faith in a book. but you have atheist believing that the planet was here how long ago? how on earth can you figure that math out? oh cause you have faith in scientist. wait, so which scientist has been around for millions of years to prove his theory correct? what? non of them? but yet you still believe in something unseen.

look, its your choice to not believe in the good book. thats on you. but dont act like its so far fetched for others to believe when you are believing things you have never seen probably never will see, cant prove with your own eyes and ears. you have to have faith in those that are telling you these things.

i've gone over this 100 times. there's no way to really know how old something is beyond what we can tell when the first man was here. anything beyond that is pure speculation. sure its based on some science. but even that is a guess. scientist read patterns to dictate time in history that goes beyond 100's of thousands of years. they dont know if what they assume is a correct pattern for 100k years is correct. how would they? they were not there back then. and there's no one from that time here to tell us "you're right: or "You're wrong" you have to have faith.

 

[rapbeats]

I guess it wouldn't be that this guy let other people knew he was broke, right?

he didnt have to. and even if he did let others know. they didnt send the check. he got a check from an old pension from an old job he had years ago. you would call it a fluke. some would call it God sending that life raft.

 

[bigDeeOT]

you have faith in historians because?????
how do you think historians prove things were what they were? i mean here we are talking about faith in a book. but you have atheist believing that the planet was here how long ago? how on earth can you figure that math out? oh cause you have faith in scientist. wait, so which scientist has been around for millions of years to prove his theory correct? what? non of them? but yet you still believe in something unseen.

I trust scientists because they can give an explanation for how they have come to that conclusion. The bible gives no explanation for how it's come to the conclusion that god exists. Further, even if god did exists, it still gives no evidence at all to show that god has ever communicated with people. It just says "god did it, and he loves you."

I don't have "faith" in scientists I trust scientists, just as I trust historians and I trust that jesus said this and he said that. But I don't trust that Jesus was divine because there's no evidence for the existence of god or that a god interferes with the affairs of this world. Faith, per definition of the bible, is "belief in things unseen." Meaning you are believing in something that has nothing to show for it. You don't see historians or scientists emphasizing how you should have "faith" in them do you? So why does the bible emphasize faith so much? Because its an absolutely absurd idea and the only way you can believe in it is if you say "ok I'll believe in it just for the sake of believing."

look, its your choice to not believe in the good book. thats on you. but dont act like its so far fetched for others to believe when you are believing things you have never seen probably never will see, cant prove with your own eyes and ears. you have to have faith in those that are telling you these things.
.

I don't have to see things with my own eyes to have a reasonable belief in it. There just has to be some evidence for it. The bible has no evidence whatsoever for the divinity of jesus so YES it is in fact far fetched for others to believe. You only believe in it because you were raised in a christian household. Am I wrong?

i've gone over this 100 times.

So have I. Trust me I've been debating this shyt since I was 12 years old. I'm 24 now. I know every singe argument in the book. I could practically pretend to be a christian if I wanted to in these debates because I know exactly what arguments you'll use and exactly how you'll say it. This is all just a game to me.

there's no way to really know how old something is beyond what we can tell when the first man was here. anything beyond that is pure speculation.
sure its based on some science. but even that is a guess. scientist read patterns to dictate time in history that goes beyond 100's of thousands of years. they dont know if what they assume is a correct pattern for 100k years is correct. how would they? they were not there back then. and there's no one from that time here to tell us "you're right: or "You're wrong" you have to have faith.

That's ridiculous. You know that people measured the circumference of the earth a thousand years ago with like 2% accuracy, even though they never traveled around the earth? By your logic, unless someone can physically travel around the earth, it's all just a "guess."

You don't understand that we can come to very solid conclusions by measuring things indirectly. Its called radiometric dating. Its not a guess. Its first year basic chemistry.