Do you believe in creation or evolution?

[Fenster]

Intelligent design seems right to me. But not god or the bible.

Anything you want to ask, by all means go ahead, I'm more than happy to tell you what I believe, but I think it's already been stated.

Go on then, what designed us?

[Alpha]

Yes, Alpha, you're copy and pasting from a young earth creationist outfit, who ironically think flat-earthers and moon conspiracy advocates are nuts.

On that site give this article a read - https://creation.com/arguments-we-th...se#just_theory

You'll especially enjoy these two - https://creation.com/arguments-we-th...t-use#moonhoax and this one - https://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth

Not sure what you're point is. I have similar ideas to them in regards to evolution. I doesn't matter to me that they are not flat earthers.

I'd advise anyone to seriously look into the fruit fly experiments, or the pigeon experiments where they have tried to force and observe evolution.

Fascinating.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0204111403.htm


http://robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpre...science-again/

You know full well I can post a link for everyone that you post, stating the complete opposite. But post as many as you like, all it will do is prove the evolution isn't a fact and only a hypothesis for scientists to base their assumptions on. Science like Religion needs one miracle to prove everything.

Intelligent design seems right to me. But not god or the bible.

Anything you want to ask, by all means go ahead, I'm more than happy to tell you what I believe, but I think it's already been stated.

Go on then, what designed us?

It's ok to say you don't know. I don't know and have never once claimed to. But when I look at the complexity of cells and DNA I find it hard to believe it all came together randomly from nothing.

[Fenster]

It's ok to say you don't know. I don't know and have never once claimed to. But when I look at the complexity of cells and DNA I find it hard to believe it all came together randomly from nothing.

For sure it's fine to say "I don't know" but you're not saying that, it would make you agnostic, you claim it was ID (basically god/a supernatural being).

That's the problem, you don't seem to understand the irony in posting mumbo jumbo/pseudo science to question the validity of real science, when the whole agenda of your source is about proving a literal interpretation of the bible.

However, you dismiss all the real science presented as lies and manipulation.

What makes your own sources authentic? They claim the moon landings were real, in part proven by the fact a fellow creationist - James Irwin - was one of the astronauts.

Explain that? No wait, let me guess, they're lying/wrong about the bit that doesn't support your narrative? They've been duped.

[Alpha]

It's ok to say you don't know. I don't know and have never once claimed to. But when I look at the complexity of cells and DNA I find it hard to believe it all came together randomly from nothing.

For sure it's fine to say "I don't know" but you're not saying that, it would make you agnostic, you claim it was ID (basically god/a supernatural being).

That's the problem, you don't seem to understand the irony in posting mumbo jumbo/pseudo science to question the validity of real science, when the whole agenda of your source is about proving a literal interpretation of the bible.

However, you dismiss all the real science presented as lies and manipulation.

What makes your own sources authentic? They claim the moon landings were real, in part proven by the fact a fellow creationist - James Irwin - was one of the astronauts.

Explain that? No wait, let me guess, they're lying/wrong about the bit that doesn't support your narrative? They've been duped.

I literally said I don't know what created us. We could all be a Sims game for all I know.

I don't believe in evolution and have given my reasons for this. I don't believe in God, or the bible. I'm not sure what sources you're referring to. Just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I have to be religious. But I do follow the same logic that everything seems so perfect to have occurred randomly.

Sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[Fenster]

It's ok to say you don't know. I don't know and have never once claimed to. But when I look at the complexity of cells and DNA I find it hard to believe it all came together randomly from nothing.

For sure it's fine to say "I don't know" but you're not saying that, it would make you agnostic, you claim it was ID (basically god/a supernatural being).

That's the problem, you don't seem to understand the irony in posting mumbo jumbo/pseudo science to question the validity of real science, when the whole agenda of your source is about proving a literal interpretation of the bible.

However, you dismiss all the real science presented as lies and manipulation.

What makes your own sources authentic? They claim the moon landings were real, in part proven by the fact a fellow creationist - James Irwin - was one of the astronauts.

Explain that? No wait, let me guess, they're lying/wrong about the bit that doesn't support your narrative? They've been duped.

I literally said I don't know what created us. We could all be a Sims game for all I know.

I don't believe in evolution and have given my reasons for this. I don't believe in God, or the bible. I'm not sure what sources you're referring to. Just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I have to be religious. But I do follow the same logic that everything seems so perfect to have occurred randomly.

Sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say.

No worries mate.

[Gandalf]

Bloody Marx has a lot to answer for. It always ends up being about those bloody Marxists and their agenda. To be fair to poor old Darwin, fascists tended to pick up on his ideas in rather crude ways too. Darwin was agnostic, but in the same way that Einstein or even Dawkins is. No scientist can say "Hand on heart I am 100% an atheist" as that would make you as much an absolutist as the double digit IQ types who argue that man walked with dinosaurs (check the polls, many do indeed believe just that).

In terms of probability those scientists did not believe in a God in any way comparable to the angry bloke or now gender neutral thing that would blow up cities or make odd demands on individual humans every now and then. They just accept that we do not have all the answers, but God is hardly the most practical solution. After all, who invented that very angry man.....sorry erm thing. Then who invented that? And then that? And then that? And on it goes forevermore.

We have this fine planet here and we do at least have some understanding of what it is and how it got here and why life is as it is. At the end of the day if God is unwilling to prove himself.....sorry herself......sorry itself....then that is on it. It is neither here nor there and neither does it matter. It is insanity that we label criticism of something that most likely doesn't even exist as hate crime nowadays too. Humanity has issues going down this path. The only reality we have at the moment is that there is almost no evidence for the existence of a God. Call its name at the top of your voice and nothing will happen. You will never see or hear anything unless your brain is broken or you have had too much brandy that evening or slyly slipped a tab of LSD. It does not matter too much at the end of the day.

And yes God is now gender neutral according to some bloke who is clearly not making it up as he goes along based on no evidence at all.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/sh...-of-canterbury