Evolution and Blood

[Kratos]

Very true, evolution is a ridiculous theory. Why would anything evolve past a microbe IF evolution occured. Algae and bacteria have a perfect stress free life. This planet is covered in water and nutrients algae and bacteria are perfect for it. I don't think life has any point either, why be alive? We are obviously a Gods project. Evolutionists just want to fool you into thinking your ancestor was some kind of monkey from Africa.
I think it is a communist conspiracy of the NWO. People may bag me on this, but that is because they are part of the conspiracy like that anti Christ trouble maker Dawkins.

Are you a POE?

I did a little research and saw Poes Law in wiki if that's what you mean?
No I just think evolution is impossible especially in the time the Earth has been here. Some believe complex unorganic structures like Iron pyrites drifting in space landed on Earth and fused with organic structures to form life but even that would not fit into the time frame. The genesis of life on Earth must be from an extra terrestrial source.

[Cyberman]

Even if we grant your unwarranted assertion that "the genesis of life on Earth must be from an extra terrestrial source", that source would itself have had to evolve elsewhere in the Universe. If that source was itself seeded from another extraterrestrial source (inasmuch as the word has any meaning beyond Earth), that source also had to evolve somewhere else. And we only have around 14 thousand million years to play with.

[Faith No More]

No I just think evolution is impossible especially in the time the Earth has been here.

What you think is irrelevant especially given your propensity for communist conspiracy theories.

Also, I know I'm going to regret this but...just how long do you think the Earth has been here?

[Voltair]

When I said wasting your time I did not mean it as an attack, not sure if you took at as one but I detected possible sarcasm in your post.

The point is you do NOT prove something by proving that something else does not answer the question. That is what I meant by saying debating evolution is a waste of time because even IF you disprove evolution you still have to PROVE God.

You jumped from my statement of that to asking me to explain laws of logic etc. Again you are performing the triangle/square scenario. Let's say that I could not answer any of your questions about logic, blood, etc. Let's say I had ABSOLUTELY no explanation for these things. How does that automatically make God the cause?

Saying that God is the only explanation requires proof of such an entity even existing. I could say that Minimalist has always existed in some form and created the laws of logic etc. You say that God did all of this but do you have any more proof that God did it vs. an eternal form of Minimalist? You believing God did it doesn't really prove anything other than that you believe God did it.

Again, you do not increase the likelihood or validity of God by simply asking other people for their alternative explanation. Let me give another example:

Let's say that we didn't understand how light worked. You flip on a light switch and I tell you "What happens is when you flip that switch magical fairies from the land of Gobulon come and feed their energy into the light bulb causing it to shine".

Now let's say you tell me "How do you know the fairies did it?" And I ask you what alternative explanation you have. If you do not have an alternative explanation does that mean that it is automatically the fairies from Globulon?

::

That example may have seemed ridiculous but that is exactly what is going on when you move from trying to provide evidence for your claims to simply trying to make others explain it. It is not the job of the atheist to explain every single facet of reality just because they don't believe in a God.

Again the point is not about what can others prove about alternative explanations the point is what can you PROVE about God? If you cannot prove anything about God then moving to simply try and discredit other people's position STILL DOESN'T MAKE GOD MORE LIKELY. If you want to prove GOD you need to stick with what you see as evidence for GOD. Do not jump to trying to just attack other people's position when you have not provided ample support for your own. Here are some steps I would recommend in proving it:

1) Establish what you mean when you say "God" that word can mean different things to different people

2) Establish what you believe is proof for this beings existence

3) Explain how this proof actually proves God and is not simply you imposing your own views on it. As in does the evidence some how prove God or is it just that it is POSSIBLY God?

4) If you manage to get here then you would talk about your proof for what you believe the will of this said God is which in your case would be the Bible

::

Now I can already tell you that you will not satisfy people's requirements for those above steps here. I could be wrong but you would be the first person to come here to do that so I would be surprised. Not trying to be insulting just stating how I see things.

However if you do follow that format above or something similar this discussion will turn into a discussion instead of chasing a million rabbits down a million different rabbit holes and getting absolutely nowhere.

[frankiej]

Kratos has just blown my mind.

[Kratos]

Even if we grant your unwarranted assertion that "the genesis of life on Earth must be from an extra terrestrial source", that source would itself have had to evolve elsewhere in the Universe. If that source was itself seeded from another extraterrestrial source (inasmuch as the word has any meaning beyond Earth), that source also had to evolve somewhere else. And we only have around 14 thousand million years to play with.

Well we are in a deserted quadrant of the galaxy far from the hub and any trade route, in a way like Polynesia was in the stone age right up until the late 1700s oblivious to the technologies of denser populated areas. Life is probably much denser at the hub with civilizations more primative and more advanced than ours. This could be the source of the beginnings of life in this galaxy. It is a possibility that intelligent beings brought life to this world to stock it with food in case of shipwreck or for colonising purposes. It is possible that we are not native to this planet but are migrants from other worlds. History is full of holes and missing links. Who knows? Where did the dinosaurs go?

[The Grand Nudger]

Kratos, how long do you think the earth has been here, and why do you assume that the dinosaurs "went" anywhere at all? Last I checked they're still here, the living and the dead. How much time would be a suitable amount of time for life to evolve (or for abiogenesis to occur, if that's what you're actually taking issue with and mistaking for evolution)? It is quite plainly not possible that we are not native to this planet, sorry to burst that bubble. This is home, the "somewhere else" we came from is called "Africa". The trouble with filling holes with fanciful this and thats is that the holes remain after doing so.

[NoMoreFaith]

Well we are in a deserted quadrant of the galaxy far from the hub and any trade route,

Trade routes? Are the plans locked in the basement in an abandoned toilet cubicle?

Its this phrase in particular which makes it no more valid than science fiction. It doesn't make it untrue, merely that it is being plucked from imagination which *might* happen to correlate with fact.

It is posible that we are not native to this planet but are migrants from other worlds. History is full of holes and missing links. Who knows? Where did the dinosaurs go?

Its a fun speculation, but I'm afraid speculation is as far as theory gets, without any supporting evidence.

Holes and Missing links are the absence of evidence. For anything. Including god and aliens.

Its healthier to work with what you've got evidence wise, rather than accepting a bedtime story as fact.

[popeyespappy]

It’s possible that Santa’s elves shit candy canes, but it’s not likely. Nor does the existence of candy canes improve the odds of their origins being in the digestive tract of mythical beings.

[elunico13]

When I said wasting your time I did not mean it as an attack, not sure if you took at as one but I detected possible sarcasm in your post.

The point is you do NOT prove something by proving that something else does not answer the question. That is what I meant by saying debating evolution is a waste of time because even IF you disprove evolution you still have to PROVE God.

You jumped from my statement of that to asking me to explain laws of logic etc. Again you are performing the triangle/square scenario. Let's say that I could not answer any of your questions about logic, blood, etc. Let's say I had ABSOLUTELY no explanation for these things. How does that automatically make God the cause?

Saying that God is the only explanation requires proof of such an entity even existing. I could say that Minimalist has always existed in some form and created the laws of logic etc. You say that God did all of this but do you have any more proof that God did it vs. an eternal form of Minimalist? You believing God did it doesn't really prove anything other than that you believe God did it.

Again, you do not increase the likelihood or validity of God by simply asking other people for their alternative explanation. Let me give another example:

Let's say that we didn't understand how light worked. You flip on a light switch and I tell you "What happens is when you flip that switch magical fairies from the land of Gobulon come and feed their energy into the light bulb causing it to shine".

Now let's say you tell me "How do you know the fairies did it?" And I ask you what alternative explanation you have. If you do not have an alternative explanation does that mean that it is automatically the fairies from Globulon?

::

That example may have seemed ridiculous but that is exactly what is going on when you move from trying to provide evidence for your claims to simply trying to make others explain it. It is not the job of the atheist to explain every single facet of reality just because they don't believe in a God.

Again the point is not about what can others prove about alternative explanations the point is what can you PROVE about God? If you cannot prove anything about God then moving to simply try and discredit other people's position STILL DOESN'T MAKE GOD MORE LIKELY. If you want to prove GOD you need to stick with what you see as evidence for GOD. Do not jump to trying to just attack other people's position when you have not provided ample support for your own. Here are some steps I would recommend in proving it:

1) Establish what you mean when you say "God" that word can mean different things to different people

2) Establish what you believe is proof for this beings existence

3) Explain how this proof actually proves God and is not simply you imposing your own views on it. As in does the evidence some how prove God or is it just that it is POSSIBLY God?

4) If you manage to get here then you would talk about your proof for what you believe the will of this said God is which in your case would be the Bible

::

Now I can already tell you that you will not satisfy people's requirements for those above steps here. I could be wrong but you would be the first person to come here to do that so I would be surprised. Not trying to be insulting just stating how I see things.

However if you do follow that format above or something similar this discussion will turn into a discussion instead of chasing a million rabbits down a million different rabbit holes and getting absolutely nowhere.

Who is God:
The God revealed in Genesis thru Revelation from the bible. If you replace his name with another than he is not what the bible refers to as God. If I said Kermit the frog gave birth to you. You would know I'm purposely misidentifying your own mother. Always remember the creator revealed in Genesis thru revelation.

I used laws of logic to demonstrate that without starting with the God of the bible than in order for you to make sense of your worldview (and everybody has one) ,you have to borrow from the laws of logic created by the God of the bible. You can't make sense of even the questions you asked of me with out that presupposition.

3 categories for worldviews are 1) God only 2) Nature and God exist or 3) Only nature exists. Atheists can only have worldviews in the 3rd category.

I was told here that laws of logic are not laws but just cause and effect. Law definition - A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority. I'm saying the laws of logic did not evolve and exist because the authority of God.

If laws are just cause and effect than many causes and effects have evolved. Laws of logic haven't or we couldn't depend on them for science or even correcting our own way of thinking.

So how does anyone account for the UNIVERSAL, IMMATERIAL and UNCHANGING laws of logic in only a material world???