All Forums | General Discussion

evolution vs creation debate

...
Participants:
Search
Views: 14549
Posts: 282
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2004
Posts: 1702
Posted: #201
Quote Originally Posted by nature1970:

I believe in a creator I also believe all good people regardless of religion will go to heaven as Jesus stated their will be those who state what wonderful work they did in his name he will rebuke and those that ask might he be the lord he say he is.

if that deeply offends you systematic then I suggest take it up with god .... oh right.... your a atheist....

not offended at all, just don't try to feed people bs...you can believe whatever you want, but it doesn't make it true...
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 25178
Posted: #202
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:


This is pretty much the question I always ask to believers about God. 

Then you have no evidence of anyone who is no longer physically a part of this world. Might as well burn all the history books while we're at it. I think Ray Bradbury foresaw this in his novel Fahrenheit 451. Of course Ray is just a figment of your imagination because he died in 2012. 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 21593
Posted: #203
Quote Originally Posted by SYSTEM:


not offended at all, just don't try to feed people bs...you can believe whatever you want, but it doesn't make it true...

ok take another turn
prove god doesn't exist.
prove that anything.... came from something else does a fly egg become a ant? how about a rat becomes a bat , fish somehow transforms itself says f it I want to walk on land now....lolol

Darwin refuted evolution after reading mcdougals research.....
you take the same line as all that tried to discredit him. the pool wasn't big enough scales wernt accurate enough ect ect... lol
really wasn't like we weren't weighing grain at the mill to the grain or anything. this was 1900 the heart of the industrial revolution, not Copernicus or Nostradamus age time but probably then you be calling Nicholas wacked  for stating the sun was center not the earth..... or Nostradamus a good Latin sonnet writer....

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 21593
Posted: #204
he took six dying people placed them in a box nothing went in or out they weighed the a difference of 3/4 of an ounce less after dying.
encouraged he placed 15 dogs in same box same conditions they weighed no less than when alive.

this research has been done since 1900 Nazis in '41did the same experimiment same results, researchers in ussr under stalin because they wanted to verify or discredit this
 did the same experiment same results...
.....
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2004
Posts: 1702
Posted: #205
Quote Originally Posted by nature1970:


ok take another turn
prove god doesn't exist.

Sure, I'll prove he doesn't exist as soon as you prove the little invisible man on my shoulder doesn't exist...sorry, but you're making the claim, I don't have to prove your god doesn't exist...


prove that anything.... came from something else does a fly egg become a ant? how about a rat becomes a bat , fish somehow transforms itself says f it I want to walk on land now....lolol

Darwin refuted evolution after reading mcdougals research.....
you take the same line as all that tried to discredit him. the pool wasn't big enough scales wernt accurate enough ect ect... lol
really wasn't like we weren't weighing grain at the mill to the grain or anything. this was 1900 the heart of the industrial revolution, not Copernicus or Nostradamus age time but probably then you be calling Nicholas wacked  for stating the sun was center not the earth..... or Nostradamus a good Latin sonnet writer....

MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more. 

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2004
Posts: 1702
Posted: #206
Quote Originally Posted by nature1970:

he took six dying people placed them in a box nothing went in or out they weighed the a difference of 3/4 of an ounce less after dying.
encouraged he placed 15 dogs in same box same conditions they weighed no less than when alive.

this research has been done since 1900 Nazis in '41did the same experimiment same results, researchers in ussr under stalin because they wanted to verify or discredit this
 did the same experiment same results...
.....
MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more. 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 21593
Posted: #207
yes I read www.abc.au article as well, so they didn't try the experiment since? put a terminal dying patient in a box on a scale not really rocket science their. 'cept the results don't adhere to accepted science.

while were on the topic of things that exist that science doesn't explain Kenneth Roberts in the early 1900
wrote of the seventh sense water dowsing and finding water...
yet it was disputed and still is cause magic doesn't exist. because the truth isn't in a high school edited science book.

the truth is science although in its infant stage has the tremendous potential to unlock all secrets. Why tower of babel explains the potential of man's imagination.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 21593
Posted: #208
Quote Originally Posted by SYSTEM:

MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more. 
tell a lie keep it simple repeat it over and over and the masses will believe its true.... Adolph Hitler.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #209
Quote Originally Posted by Getty3:


Then you have no evidence of anyone who is no longer physically a part of this world. Might as well burn all the history books while we're at it. I think Ray Bradbury foresaw this in his novel Fahrenheit 451. Of course Ray is just a figment of your imagination because he died in 2012. 

Terrible example/analogy. 

I feel like you posted this only because of my comment to you that you supported murder. Don't take it too seriously. 

Like I've said before. Default position is the null position. There is nothing. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you claim there is a God, then you have to provide sufficient evidence. If there was sufficient evidence provided, then I think mankind would all support there being a God. 

There is as much evidence for a God as there is for the spaghetti monster. 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 21593
Posted: #210
I understand trying to explain to a born again atheist of god or futher his will is like explaining a solid starting range for tournament texas hold 'em to a person who never looked a deck of cards.
I do not have patients in the matter at least an agnostic understands a higher power.....
to the context has played some sort of games involving a deck of cards....
some it up and leave you be. to each their own.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2004
Posts: 1702
Posted: #211
Quote Originally Posted by nature1970:

yes I read www.abc.au article as well, so they didn't try the experiment since? put a terminal dying patient in a box on a scale not really rocket science their. 'cept the results don't adhere to accepted science.

while were on the topic of things that exist that science doesn't explain Kenneth Roberts in the early 1900
wrote of the seventh sense water dowsing and finding water...
yet it was disputed and still is cause magic doesn't exist. because the truth isn't in a high school edited science book.

the truth is science although in its infant stage has the tremendous potential to unlock all secrets. Why tower of babel explains the potential of man's imagination.


you don't understand how science works...
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2004
Posts: 1702
Posted: #212
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:


Terrible example/analogy. 

I feel like you posted this only because of my comment to you that you supported murder. Don't take it too seriously. 

Like I've said before. Default position is the null position. There is nothing. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you claim there is a God, then you have to provide sufficient evidence. If there was sufficient evidence provided, then I think mankind would all support there being a God. 

There is as much evidence for a God as there is for the spaghetti monster. 

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 27785
Posted: #213
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:


Terrible example/analogy. 

I feel like you posted this only because of my comment to you that you supported murder. Don't take it too seriously. 

Like I've said before. Default position is the null position. There is nothing. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you claim there is a God, then you have to provide sufficient evidence. If there was sufficient evidence provided, then I think mankind would all support there being a God. 

There is as much evidence for a God as there is for the spaghetti monster. 

This is even a worse analogy.

The flying spaghetti monster is within the space/time continium..God is spaceless, timeless and immaterial. So you have a categorical error immediately.

Also, whoever makes a claim to knowledge has the burden of proof.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2004
Posts: 1702
Posted: #214
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:


This is even a worse analogy.

The flying spaghetti monster is within the space/time continium..God is spaceless, timeless and immaterial. So you have a categorical error immediately.

prove it...

Also, whoever makes a claim to knowledge has the burden of proof.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #215
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:


This is even a worse analogy.

The flying spaghetti monster is within the space/time continium..God is spaceless, timeless and immaterial. So you have a categorical error immediately.

Also, whoever makes a claim to knowledge has the burden of proof.

And now you're making God impossible to test or verify. Same could be said with flying spaghetti monster if we wanted to believe in it. Same could be said of Greek or Roman Gods. 

I've already said burden of proof is on person making claim. However, the default position is the null position. There is nothing (please spare me your arguments on the definition of "nothing", we've already been through this). Then someone makes a claim e.g. there is a God. Then it is up to them to prove it. My stance is that there has not been sufficient evidence provided that there is a God. So until there is sufficient evidence provided, I have no reason to believe in a God. 

The rest tends to fall like dominoes. Since there isn't sufficient proof of God, then God isn't the standard for objective morality. God isn't the creator of everything, or anything for that matter. And so on and so on.....


 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 27785
Posted: #216
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:


And now you're making God impossible to test or verify. Same could be said with flying spaghetti monster if we wanted to believe in it. Same could be said of Greek or Roman Gods. 

I've already said burden of proof is on person making claim. However, the default position is the null position. There is nothing (please spare me your arguments on the definition of "nothing", we've already been through this). Then someone makes a claim e.g. there is a God. Then it is up to them to prove it. My stance is that there has not been sufficient evidence provided that there is a God. So until there is sufficient evidence provided, I have no reason to believe in a God. 

The rest tends to fall like dominoes. Since there isn't sufficient proof of God, then God isn't the standard for objective morality. God isn't the creator of everything, or anything for that matter. And so on and so on.....



Is that what you think God is? That is he exists he would testable by a scientific experiment? Seen under a microscope or a telescope?

The flying spghetti monster is made out of speghetti, meatballs etc etc..all within the confines of space and time.

Furthermore, we all believe in things to be actually true that cannot be proven or known via the scientific method.

This is nothing new.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2004
Posts: 1702
Posted: #217
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:


Is that what you think God is? That is he exists he would testable by a scientific experiment? Seen under a microscope or a telescope?

I'll answer for ktrain, he doesn't think your god is anything, because one doesn't exist...until you can test the supernatural, you're like nature 1970, just making s h i t up...

The flying spghetti monster is made out of speghetti, meatballs etc etc..all within the confines of space and time.

Furthermore, we all believe in things to be actually true that cannot be proven or known via the scientific method.

This is nothing new.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #218
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:

Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:

And now you're making God impossible to test or verify. Same could be said with flying spaghetti monster if we wanted to believe in it. Same could be said of Greek or Roman Gods. I've already said burden of proof is on person making claim. However, the default position is the null position. There is nothing (please spare me your arguments on the definition of "nothing", we've already been through this). Then someone makes a claim e.g. there is a God. Then it is up to them to prove it. My stance is that there has not been sufficient evidence provided that there is a God. So until there is sufficient evidence provided, I have no reason to believe in a God. The rest tends to fall like dominoes. Since there isn't sufficient proof of God, then God isn't the standard for objective morality. God isn't the creator of everything, or anything for that matter. And so on and so on.....
Is that what you think God is? That is he exists he would testable by a scientific experiment? Seen under a microscope or a telescope?The flying spghetti monster is made out of speghetti, meatballs etc etc..all within the confines of space and time.Furthermore, we all believe in things to be actually true that cannot be proven or known via the scientific method.This is nothing new.



Nope spaghetti monster defies time and space. He's more than spaghetti because he's also a monster. I never said anything about meatballs either so you clearly don't know what you're referring to. Prove me wrong. Go ahead. Show me he/she/it doesn't exist.

Like I said. Same criteria and evidence, yet most of society believes in one and not the other.

Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't let repentant child molesters into his heaven either. This deity seems more moral.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 27785
Posted: #219
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:

Is that what you think God is? That is he exists he would testable by a scientific experiment? Seen under a microscope or a telescope?The flying spghetti monster is made out of speghetti, meatballs etc etc..all within the confines of space and time.Furthermore, we all believe in things to be actually true that cannot be proven or known via the scientific method.This is nothing new.


Nope spaghetti monster defies time and space. He's more than spaghetti because he's also a monster. I never said anything about meatballs either so you clearly don't know what you're referring to. Prove me wrong. Go ahead. Show me he/she/it doesn't exist.

Like I said. Same criteria and evidence, yet most of society believes in one and not the other.

Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't let repentant child molesters into his heaven either. This deity seems more moral.

Why is it spaghetti? Because it is made out of spaghetti...which is actually matter.

Again, this fails as it is a categorical error.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #220
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:


Why is it spaghetti? Because it is made out of spaghetti...which is actually matter.

Again, this fails as it is a categorical error.

Nope. This is special spaghetti that isn't made of matter, isn't verifiable, and cannot be tested. Similar to God being a "special man". I know you don't consider him a man but we always seem to refer to God as a "he" which would indicate that he's a person. 

If it makes you feel any better you can substitute spaghetti for a different name. Allah, Zeus, whatever. It's all the same. 


 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 15772
Posted: #221
If God exists, then the Christian Scientists are correct. Why fight disease?

If the ultimate goal is heaven and getting there is as easy as believing in your savior, the son of God, why not hasten this process?

Why do we pray for people with cancer and then when they die say "well, they are in a better place"

Would it not only fall with logic that we should pray for people with cancer to die, as it is God's will and they are in a better place?
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 15772
Posted: #222
There is no reason for morality without God, if there was to  be no love. If we choose not to believe in God, do we choose not to believe in love?

Love guides us on a path that is moral and just. Morality does not come from God or the bible ( as God calling gays an abomination is not moral) but from the ability to love each other and care for each other. You do not need a God for that, only a brain.

Even with God the acts of some, cutting off heads and hating Gays, is justified with the morality of the Bible. Which is open for wide interpretation.


 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #223
Crash 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 27785
Posted: #224
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:


Nope. This is special spaghetti that isn't made of matter, isn't verifiable, and cannot be tested. Similar to God being a "special man". I know you don't consider him a man but we always seem to refer to God as a "he" which would indicate that he's a person. 

If it makes you feel any better you can substitute spaghetti for a different name. Allah, Zeus, whatever. It's all the same. 



But it is..spaghetti is made of matter...end of story
 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 27785
Posted: #225
Quote Originally Posted by Crashdavis565:

There is no reason for morality without God, if there was to  be no love. If we choose not to believe in God, do we choose not to believe in love?

Love guides us on a path that is moral and just. Morality does not come from God or the bible ( as God calling gays an abomination is not moral) but from the ability to love each other and care for each other. You do not need a God for that, only a brain.

Even with God the acts of some, cutting off heads and hating Gays, is justified with the morality of the Bible. Which is open for wide interpretation.



In the absence of love, what is moral? Furthermore, why think we have any moral duties int he absence of God? Who imposes these duties on us?

In the absence of God, morality is merely subjective, each and everyone of us decides what is moral, whether it is Hitler, Stalin, Mother Theresa, Al Qada or ISIS.

Furthermore, if they are subjective, there is no such thing as right or wrong morally. If i come in to your house and butcher you and your family, i havent done anything wrong, it might be undesirable or unpleasant, but not wrong as right or wrong ONLY exist in relation to facts. If moral facts dont exist (moral facts can only exist and be grounded in God) then there is no right or wrong.

The irony in all this is, all atheists scream and shout that morality is subjective, yet when a moral issue arises, they scream and shout that those actions are wrong.

Ask yourself, when you see someone eat a food that you dont like, do you scream and shout and be outraged that what they are doing is wrong? Of course not, because you realise taste in food is subjective. If morality is also subjective , then why do you scream and shout and be outraged at moral acts such as racism, murder, rape? 

All Forums | General Discussion
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gambling
Betting Sites
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
21+
Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
Help Privacy Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
Covers is verified safe by:
Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo PCI DSS logo Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 Genius Sports. All Rights Reserved.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.