SOCCERROO FOX Posted 17 January 2009 Posted 17 January 2009 Has there actually been any proof of God existing??Anyone actually seen Him? I think that i will be calling for him soon, when i have my head in a toilet
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 17 January 2009 Posted 17 January 2009 Things have got that bad have they A big feed, plenty of amber fluids and dancing don't mix i fell extremly bloated but satisfied that i pushed thru the pain barrier and didn't take the easy option of chucking.....yet it is only 2am
StanSP Posted 17 January 2009 Posted 17 January 2009 A big feed, plenty of amber fluids and dancing don't mix i fell extremly bloated but satisfied that i pushed thru the pain barrier and didn't take the easy option of chucking.....yet it is only 2am No pain no gain my friend!
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 17 January 2009 Posted 17 January 2009 No pain no gain my friend! Im going too sleep it off, but it was a massive feed i'm blaming it on that any way
lookwhaticando Posted 17 January 2009 Posted 17 January 2009 There is no god. So he should just suck it up and drive the fooking bus. God damn layabout.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 17 January 2009 Posted 17 January 2009 Put it this way, would you drive a bus that says, "Notts Forest - the greatest football team in the world!"? :nono: All the same difference.
lookwhaticando Posted 17 January 2009 Posted 17 January 2009 He's paid to drive the bus. Unless the bus says something about him personally, he should continue to drive the bus. It's a bloody advert you spanner. Deal with it. I bet he'd have no complaints about driving the bus if it said something derogatory (not that the ad he's protesting about is derogatory) about any other particular faith... Toss artist.
BoneDog Posted 17 January 2009 Posted 17 January 2009 Reincarnation. Become a differnt life form in the next life.I'm not saying he doesn't exist at all. I'm just saying that it is very hard to prove his existence. Where do all the new 'souls' come from then? Because there only used to be a couple of million people on the planet and now there is over 6000 million. If you believe in reincarnation I wonder where all the new souls come from. Do they just appear out of nowhere? If the world population stayed the same or got lower I could probably believe in reincarnation, but as population keeps on growing I can't see it. People who believe in a Creator I think have a less ridiculous arguement than people who say everything just appeared out of nowhere. If someone said to you that your television just appeared from nowhere you would know they were lying. And human beings, animals and everything in the natural world are a billion times more complex than a television, so I think it's stupid to believe that they just 'appeared'.
Daggers Posted 17 January 2009 Posted 17 January 2009 ...so I think it's stupid to believe that they just 'appeared'. It is. They didn't. Evolution happened.
BoneDog Posted 17 January 2009 Posted 17 January 2009 It is.They didn't. Evolution happened. that is funny!! Evolution!!
AoWW Posted 17 January 2009 Posted 17 January 2009 He's paid to drive the bus. Unless the bus says something about him personally, he should continue to drive the bus. It's a bloody advert you spanner. Deal with it. I bet he'd have no complaints about driving the bus if it said something derogatory (not that the ad he's protesting about is derogatory) about any other particular faith... Toss artist. I love lookydo's 'sensitive' approach to HR.
Daggers Posted 17 January 2009 Posted 17 January 2009 that is funny!! Evolution!! C'mon then genius, enlighten me...
AoWW Posted 17 January 2009 Posted 17 January 2009 It is.They didn't. Evolution happened. that is funny!! Evolution!! C'mon then genius, enlighten me... Oh, God help us.
BoneDog Posted 17 January 2009 Posted 17 January 2009 C'mon then genius, enlighten me... How do I know? I'm just a mere mortal the same as everybody else. All I'm saying is that to believe in evolution is exactly the same as believing in Creation. No physical proof for either. That's why it's called the evolution 'theory'. Over 100 years since the theory started and still no evidence. There have been a few fake fossils of course. Alot of top scientists have in fact stated that evolution has been dis-proved over the last 20 years.
Daggers Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 How do I know? I'm just a mere mortal the same as everybody else. All I'm saying is that to believe in evolution is exactly the same as believing in Creation. No physical proof for either. That's why it's called the evolution 'theory'. Over 100 years since the theory started and still no evidence. There have been a few fake fossils of course. Alot of top scientists have in fact stated that evolution has been dis-proved over the last 20 years. That's right, the theory of evolution has nothing going for it whatsoever. You obviously have everything nailed on this one. I bow to your wide reading on the matter and phenominal scope of argument. Fancy sourcing your marvellous citations? I'd love to read the interesting and well-researched "top scientists" who have "dis-proved" evolution.
Flynny Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 All I'm saying is that to believe in evolution is exactly the same as believing in Creation. No physical proof for either. That's why it's called the evolution 'theory'. Over 100 years since the theory started and still no evidence. There have been a few fake fossils of course.Alot of top scientists have in fact stated that evolution has been dis-proved over the last 20 years. Reading something that quote-mines magazine articles to build a case against evolution isn't the same as finding out its been disproven. As for fossils, that very much depends on the definition of fossils 'proving' evolution. Right up through geological time species become more complex. Throughout time fossils change. There are fossils of mammal-like reptiles and then reptile-like mammals (the line between the two is subjective, of course, but the trend is there). There are dinosaurs that look a bit birdlike, there are birds that look a bit like dinosaurs. What doesn't happen is that a species is captured in the fossil record 20 times during a transition from one species to another. There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, fossils are incredibly improbable things. Only about 1% of all species will ever be fossilised. Secondly, even a slight change and a scientist will lobby for it to be called a species, no doubt with his name on. Thirdly, dating stuff that happened 300 million years ago is pretty difficult as it is, there's often half a million years of error either way, which is a blink of geological time but a lot for a species. Going from one species to another can take as little as a few thousand years. Basically: Paleontology can and does show trends very, very easily, but handily creationists have decided that the level of detail needed to "prove" it is one beyond any capability. Its like me saying that the horrendously orange guy on television who looks like Dale Winton, talks like Dale Winton, is introduced as Dale Winton, and is hosting the lottery could well not be Dale Winton, and that I'd need a signed addafit, a copy of the BBC-sign-in logs and mobile phone photographs from 50% of the studio audience to decide. As an aside, I'd like to add this: I was bought up religious and once had a very nice book that I read a few times growing up that, as far as I saw it, tore evolution a new arsehole. I'd eagerly argue things I'd read in it with schoolfriends, such as mathematical improbability, the observed unlikeliness ("you're telling me THE EYE evolved?!" - actually, though again theres a lack of fine detail, a basic progression of the eye is easy to demonstrate from the fossil record), all sorts. And of course, it was full of quotes from scientists expressing doubt about evolution. Unfortunately I was also a right nerd (was. honest.) and a lot of other science really, really interested me. I read a lot of natural science textbooks which all contained explanations of evolution in varying detail. Later when I started to "have doubts" religiously, I went to the book again and, armed with a basic knowledge of evolution, noticed that a lot of the arguments ranged from anywhere from misrepresentation to outright lies. I'm bringing this up not to suggest that anyone who believes in evolution is a dunderhead who needs to read some science books, because frankly I read an abnormal amount of the things a few years back. I'm talking how people can believe quite wildly differing stuff; how science is constantly presented as an 'argument' or a 'debate' due to religion and politics, when its supposed to be about getting down to fact. In a Geoscience practical on Tuesday I was given a very convincing chapter of a book published in 1993 asserting that the ozone hole was simply a myth, that it had existed before, and that human-produced CFCs had nothing to do with it. If I'd read it outside that environment, I'd have been pretty convinced by its arguments. As it is, it turned out that pretty much all of them relied on basic errors of chemistry, physics, and (very, very, very) discredited data. Science does find fact. The peer-review system is one of the most efficient ways of building on knowledge and keeping faulty assumptions out. Its got faults, but those are discovered fairly quickly for the most part because science moves forward, and always has to build on what's come before. Books arguing against things like the Ozone Hole, Global Warming, and Creationism, will not quote peer-reviewed sources because they don't find the controversy they're looking for there. If they do, its to use quotes or data out of context. Lastly, we're very driven by our peer-affirmation, a term I literally just made up. When I was a kid I said to my mum "If evolution is true and we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys left?", to which she replied "exactly". Thats a totally crap argument involving a complete misunderstanding of evoltionary theory, but of course since my Mum doesn't give a shit about evolution, she didn't submit my question to even a second of proper, directed thought. If you hang around with people who share your beliefs and ideals, those are re-enforced. Religious people do this a lot. Religious people are also more emotionally tied to their beliefs. Thats how faith works. There was a big long paragraph here but it descended into me babbling even more and probably wasn't convincing in the slightest. I'm already being a crashing bore. Basically, what I'm saying is: Truth is hard to find, when when you think you've got it, being so certain of it that you don't engage your brain when something butts against it is a move that most of the world'd make but is ridiculous. Atheists do this. Religious people do it a fuckload more.
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 That's right, the theory of evolution has nothing going for it whatsoever. You obviously have everything nailed on this one. I bow to your wide reading on the matter and phenominal scope of argument. Thankyou!
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Fancy sourcing your marvellous citations? I'd love to read the interesting and well-researched "top scientists" who have "dis-proved" evolution. One of the worlds greatest scientific minds, with Ivy League degrees in mathematics and micro-biology. There are more people I read but I think people would have negative things to say about them as they are 'religious' so I thought I'd put this guy forward. He is an agnostic. You said you'd love to read the interesting and well-researched 'top scientists' i rate, so here's one. I have some links to videos of his interviews aswell. And plenty of other documentarys, films and interviews by other people who say the same thing. Dr David Berlinski A quote of his about the evolution theory, "Lots and lots of people are skeptical in the scientific community. I know dozens of mathematicians who scratch their heads and say "You guys think this is the way life originated?! It's absolutely a preposterous theory. And many significant figures including John von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the 20th century, just laughed at Darwinian theory. He hooted at it."
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 As an aside, I'd like to add this: I was bought up religious and once had a very nice book that I read a few times growing up that, as far as I saw it, tore evolution a new arsehole. Basically, what I'm saying is: Truth is hard to find, when when you think you've got it, being so certain of it that you don't engage your brain when something butts against it is a move that most of the world'd make but is ridiculous. Atheists do this. Religious people do it a fuckload more. I was just wondering what religion you used to believe in and what book you used to read? I only wonder because they have all been changed so much by people over the years (King James version etc.) and there are very few religious books that are still in their original form (so they do sound ridiculous). As for the science and religion thing, it seems to me that most people think that science and religion are like chalk and cheese. But the religious books I have read say that you should look around you at the universe and use your minds to try to solve things and move forward. They encourage people to have scientific minds and think much. Unfortunately, due to most religious books being changed over the years people tend to think of religious people as being closed minded. This is only because the books have been changed so much and have had a lot of crap added into them. And when it comes to 'truth', the only thing I am convinced of is that our universe couldn't of just appeared from nothing, with no power or intelligence behind it. I have only responded to a little of what you said as I'm on me way to work, but will read it again when I get back and probably reply again cos I cant help myself. Sorry if I gone off in the wrong direction, I cant always understand what people are trying to say unless it in simple words!
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 P.S I think the bus driver should of just gone to work. It's only a frickin advert after all. I see stuff on tele I don't agree with all the time, but I aint gonna stop payin my sky subscription innit.
stez Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 It's almost impossible to prove a negative! Hence the "probably" doesn't exist!Prove to me that what I see as red, isn't what you see as blue? i often wonder about that being the case There is no god.So he should just suck it up and drive the fooking bus. God damn layabout. how can she damn anybody if he doesn't exist? my thoughts on the bus driver are, he should've asked for the right to put a counter arguement advert up and got on with his job oh yeah (edit) the best minds used to thing the sun and the moon were gods, the best minds used to think the earth was flat, the best minds often get things wrong, the best minds could still be getting things wrong, you know what i'll let them get on with it, i'll still have to work, whether god exists or not or whether we evolved from some alien space dust, or not.
Daggers Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 One of the worlds greatest scientific minds Berlinski? Seriously? That's as good as your argument gets? Berlinski! We have nothing to discuss, I'll leave you to your cerebral Yootoob clips and wiki pages.
Flynny Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Berlinski? Seriously? That's as good as your argument gets? Berlinski! We have nothing to discuss, I'll leave you to your cerebral Yootoob clips and wiki pages. Having just looked him up his arguments against seem pretty standard, by which I mean mostly debunked or unimportant. And can I say again - that scientists aren't precisely sure what happened half a billion years ago shouldn't be a stick to beat them with.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.