Does God exist? (17 Viewers)

[-Danyan-]

Bitch you lost all my credibility when you said that the water that mad dirt into mud isnt inside that mud anymore. Remember that, you must be bitzing your marine sciences course

 

[Kwayera]

Once again, for very simple minds, mud is a size of sediment. Mud doesn't have to be wet to be mud.

Lol.


EDIT: And in this context, mud is analogous to silt, and is used synonymously. Technically, the size "mud" includes silt, and then clay, and then colloid (in order of decreasing size).

 

[-Danyan-]

Once again, for very simple minds, mud is a size of sediment. Mud doesn't have to be wet to be mud.

Lol.

If my mind is simple yours must be incredibly dull, if that mud is at the bottom of an ocean, it better be damned wet

Mud, silt, whatever, if its at the bottome of the ocean, it's gonna be wet

 

[Kwayera]

If my mind is simple yours must be incredibly dull, if that mud is at the bottom of an ocean, it better be damned wet

You know those cartoons where prison inmates are digging themselves out, and at the end of a long tunnel they go upwards, and suddenly the tunnel springs a leak and they hit the ocean? Yeah, turns out those are pretty accurate, in theory if not scale.

Sediment is not wet the whole way down, just because there's an ocean sitting on it.

 

[Will Shakespear]

whybother,butanyway

yh, a bit like atheists making up the big bang, how the earth was created, how life started,

it could of possible happened that way, but how would you KNOW

Couldn't god have done it

you're confusing 'atheists' with 'scientists'

and 'making up' with 'painstakingly piece together using independent sources of evidence over hundreds of years of research and slowly improving our understanding'

no one (except the religous, lol) ever made up theories you mentioned out of nowhere

there are good, solid reasons why currently accepted theories are the best available

whereas there are no good reasons for believing in god, that's why it's called faith

god 'could' have done it, but there's no reason at all to believe he did

whereas there's, i dunno, cosmic background radiation and redshift and plenty of other reasons to accept the big bang model

if you actually had reasons for believing god did it, you could explain them to someone and they'd pretty much have to accept that it was the best explanation

but you don't, so you can't possibly expect anyone else to believe it

the only reason you do is because lots of other people do, really

 

[gibbo153]

ok. "Why believe in a God?" - Believe in a God because He's real and he want us to know him and get to live with Him for forever in Heaven. Don't you want that?

are there proofs that God does not exist? I disagree.

it's not "utter garbage". they are to get u to think about 'is there a God out there?'

i'm happy that you have faith but BoSer's don't like circular arguments

 

[-Danyan-]

You know those cartoons where prison inmates are digging themselves out, and at the end of a long tunnel they go upwards, and suddenly the tunnel springs a leak and they hit the ocean? Yeah, turns out those are pretty accurate, in theory if not scale.

Sediment is not wet the whole way down, just because there's an ocean sitting on it.

Do you remember what we were arguing about back then, I think it was the first anaerobic bacteria that you said formed in the ocean and then somehow knew to come down to the ocean floor to survive, that sounds a bit suss already, and then somehow they didn't die swimming what must have been a considerable distance to them through oxygen rich water, (how did they know how to swim thorugh the mud particles to keep getting lower), and then somehow got thorugh at least a metre of oxygen rich water between the water saturated mud (is it okay to assume that theres at least 1 m of ocean floor still having water in it vertically), and then survived.

Damn thats astounding odds, not even close to that same bacterium having evolved on its own though, it almost sounds as if something else was involved. Oh and lest not forget the odds of the ocean somehow being saturated with ammonia at one point for the ammonia required for your little reaction to have proceeded to exists within the water without hydrolising

 

[-Danyan-]

whybother,butanyway



you're confusing 'atheists' with 'scientists'

and 'making up' with 'painstakingly piece together using independent sources of evidence over hundreds of years of research and slowly improving our understanding'

no one (except the religous, lol) ever made up theories you mentioned out of nowhere

there are good, solid reasons why currently accepted theories are the best available

whereas there are no good reasons for believing in god, that's why it's called faith

god 'could' have done it, but there's no reason at all to believe he did

whereas there's, i dunno, cosmic background radiation and redshift and plenty of other reasons to accept the big bang model

if you actually had reasons for believing god did it, you could explain them to someone and they'd pretty much have to accept that it was the best explanation

but you don't, so you can't possibly expect anyone else to believe it

the only reason you do is because lots of other people do, really

In order to make the big bang 'work', they had to assume that the law of conservation of energy did not apply at the beginning of the universe, any evidence as to that assumption, no not really.

but they needed it to get to the result that there is something and not nothing nowadays, sounds like a belief to me mate

 

[Kwayera]

Do you remember what we were arguing about back then, I think it was the first anaerobic bacteria that you said formed in the ocean and then somehow knew to come down to the ocean floor to survive, that sounds a bit suss already, and then somehow they didn't die swimming what must have been a considerable distance to them through oxygen rich water, (how did they know how to swim thorugh the mud particles to keep getting lower), and then somehow got thorugh at least a metre of oxygen rich water between the water saturated mud (is it okay to assume that theres at least 1 m of ocean floor still having water in it vertically), and then survived.

Damn thats astounding odds, not even close to that same bacterium having evolved on its own though, it almost sounds as if something else was involved. Oh and lest not forget the odds of the ocean somehow being saturated with ammonia at one point for the ammonia required for your little reaction to have proceeded to exists within the water without hydrolising

Okay, apparently I didn't make myself clear the first time, I'm not even going to try. I'm not a teacher.

Read this.

Evolutionary history of life

And what's with your obsession with ammonia?

 

[gibbo153]

(to non theists) expanding on what Danyan said, what is your response to teleological arguments

 

[Kwayera]

(to non theists) expanding on what Danyan said, what is your response to teleological arguments

Arguments from design? I don't know about you, but studying biology and geology and associated crap makes me see the world as pretty damned chaotic.


EDIT: And that wasn't as much of a non sequiter as it sounded. The word "teleological" is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning "end" or "purpose". Evolution, as an example, doesn't have an end or purpose, or a pinnacle or a goal. It just is.

 

[gibbo153]

Arguments from design? I don't know about you, but studying biology and geology and associated crap makes me see the world as pretty damned chaotic.


EDIT: And that wasn't as much of a non sequiter as it sounded. The word "teleological" is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning "end" or "purpose". Evolution, as an example, doesn't have and end or purpose, or a pinnacle or a goal. It just is.

hmm yeah i spose thats true, but on the other hand there are things that are innumerably complex.

i just can't accept that it just randomly occurred

 

[nikolas]

(to non theists) expanding on what Danyan said, what is your response to teleological arguments

It's crap, using the same principle, if the something needs to be designed, if it is deemed complex, then this would imply the designer would needed to be designed as well.

That + argument of poor design.

 

[-Danyan-]

Okay, apparently I didn't make myself clear the first time, I'm not even going to try. I'm not a teacher.

Read this.

Evolutionary history of life

And what's with your obsession with ammonia?

I'll admit I havn't got time to read through the whole article, tell me which specific part you'd want me to see, nonetheless your arguments are all failing btw, because what your saying couldnt have happened.

And this part made me laugh, you guys dont seriously believe this part do you ( from the part describing how sex evolved)

'It may have evolved from cannibalism, where some of the victim's DNA was incorporated into the cannibal organism'

WTF!!!

For the other question im assuming your talking about theistic evolution etc. (God controlled the evolutionary chain), my view is that the bible is correct, and that what god said happened, so honestly I can't take that view to be my belief, and that I don't think God would have required to do that or done that when he could have completed it far faster just creating them

 

[Kwayera]

hmm yeah i spose thats true, but on the other hand there are things that are innumerably complex.

i just can't accept that it just randomly occurred

Why? It's also important to note that evolution is not necessarily random. Mutations are random, but the preservation of useful mutations that lead to complex structures certainly isn't.

 

[nikolas]

For the other question im assuming your talking about theistic evolution etc. (God controlled the evolutionary chain), my view is that the bible is correct, and that what god said happened, so honestly I can't take that view to be my belief, and that I don't think God would have required to do that or done that when he could have completed it far faster just creating them

So the universe is only 6000 years old despite the mountain of evidence saying otherwise?

 

[Kwayera]

I'll admit I havn't got time to read through the whole article, tell me which specific part you'd want me to see, nonetheless your arguments are all failing btw, because what your saying couldnt have happened.

So you haven't got time to learn and educate yourself.

See, this is why I not bothering.

And this part made me laugh, you guys dont seriously believe this part do you ( from the part describing how sex evolved)

'It may have evolved from cannibalism, where some of the victim's DNA was incorporated into the cannibal organism'

WTF!!!

Er, yes? How else would you explain how incorporation of another individual's DNA would begin? I don't see why this is a problem. It's a hypothesis, but a sound one.

For the other question im assuming your talking about theistic evolution etc. (God controlled the evolutionary chain), my view is that the bible is correct, and that what god said happened, so honestly I can't take that view to be my belief, and that I don't think God would have required to do that or done that when he could have completed it far faster just creating them

Convenient, huh?

 

[Will Shakespear]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[-Danyan-]

Foolproof evidence?

If the Earth was the 4.4 billion years old, then since the magnetic field of the Earth has been decreasing at a decreasing rate, then using the most conservative calculations, assuming a linear decreasing rate, the magnetic field of the Earth would have been around the strength of that of a magnetic star.

Proof, evidence, wouldn't that magnetic field have completely ripped apart the
Earth

 

[Will Shakespear]

Foolproof evidence?

If the Earth was the 4.4 billion years old, then since the magnetic field of the Earth has been decreasing at a decreasing rate, then using the most conservative calculations, assuming a linear decreasing rate, the magnetic field of the Earth would have been around the strength of that of a magnetic star.

Proof, evidence, wouldn't that magnetic field have completely ripped apart the
Earth

ah, the temperature in NSW has been decreasing steadily for the last 6 hours

using the most conservative calculations, assuming a lienar decreasing rate, we should freeze to death by tomorrow afternoon