RE: Non-religious evidence for existence of God
March 27, 2013 at 8:14 am
(This post was last modified: March 27, 2013 at 8:21 am by paulpablo.)
Have you heard of evolution? And the court case in America in which all the evidence for irreducible complexity was dismissed?
Even so why would god make a creature what is capable of crushing another smaller creature to death? Why give cats the brain processes which make them enjoy torturing other animals for hours? For every animal that's "created" with camouflage or mimicry or venom this makes another animal will go without a meal, or die from poison. Or what about parasites and worms that blind people in Africa small pox HIV and so on?
But if you do have evidence for irreducible complexity and why evolution is wrong then it's a shame you couldn't attend the court case or present your findings, you should try and get in touch with biologists and nature experts and make sure you present them with your findings you're pretty much wasting your time on here.
And as for hamzas argument about who created the creator he just destroys his own argument and does it in a funny way to make people laugh, which is a common theme with him.
He says infinite regression is illogical, which is exactly the point.
If you say we are here, so logically something created us, you can't just then stop using that exact same logic all of a sudden that says things are here because they were created, you have to then say who created that creator if that's the logic you're using.
My question is what life forms were there before bacterium?
Even so why would god make a creature what is capable of crushing another smaller creature to death? Why give cats the brain processes which make them enjoy torturing other animals for hours? For every animal that's "created" with camouflage or mimicry or venom this makes another animal will go without a meal, or die from poison. Or what about parasites and worms that blind people in Africa small pox HIV and so on?
Quote:Like intelligent design, the concept it seeks to support, irreducible complexity has failed to gain any notable acceptance within the scientific community. One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."
"As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. . In fact, the theory of evolution proffers adaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means."
But if you do have evidence for irreducible complexity and why evolution is wrong then it's a shame you couldn't attend the court case or present your findings, you should try and get in touch with biologists and nature experts and make sure you present them with your findings you're pretty much wasting your time on here.
And as for hamzas argument about who created the creator he just destroys his own argument and does it in a funny way to make people laugh, which is a common theme with him.
He says infinite regression is illogical, which is exactly the point.
If you say we are here, so logically something created us, you can't just then stop using that exact same logic all of a sudden that says things are here because they were created, you have to then say who created that creator if that's the logic you're using.
Quote:my question to them are, who had rotating propellers before bacteria and spermcells?
My question is what life forms were there before bacterium?
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
Impersonation is treason.
