-
I don't believe I was the one who said that lol. But anyways, it was a nice discussion :)
-
You weren't it was one of the op's comments, you replied to my response to him.
-
How does the big bang theory disprove God? And are you saying matter and energy are eternal?
-
You are not understanding my comment please reread.
-
[quote]The existence of God is very logical and the most plausible explanation for the universe and life.[/quote] It obviously isn't.
-
-
You're obviously alive aren't you fcckface.
-
Evolution. Nuff said.
-
And who the fcck created Evolution?
-
Uh no one. Evolution is the process that happens over millions of years that essentially changes species over time for the better. For instance, we evolved from Neanderthals which were hairy and dumb and over time we evolved into Homosapiens which are intellectually superior and aren't as hairy.
-
Someone created the conditions and terms for it to develop. I know wtf Evolution is.
-
No one created it. There's no proof.
-
Cause you know what happen at the beginning of time. One can believe what they want.
-
There's no proof for God so why should I believe in him?
-
There's no proof of life arising from non life and you believe that...
-
Edited by LiamCDM: 8/24/2015 11:54:57 PMThere are logical theories...
-
That's some wild speculation. And let's not forget that even if scientists develop a test to prove that life comes from non life, it took intelligent minds to set up said tests and experiments. It wouldn't happen on its own.
-
[quote] it took intelligent minds to set up said tests and experiments. It wouldn't happen on its own. [/quote] That doesn't make sense. That's like saying the Big Bang never happened because there was no one to create it.
-
Idc do what you want.
-
Either matter and energy are eternal or there is an eternal God. That can go either way. But, life never has and never will arise from non life. Therefore, it's more plausible that there is an eternal living entity that created everything. Whether or not he used a mechanism like evolution is unknown, but naturalism has no basis in reality.
-
Technically speaking, matter and energy [i]are[/i] eternal, as they cannot be created nor destroyed; they merely take different forms.
-
[quote]Either matter and energy are eternal or there is an eternal God.[/quote] Depending on how "God" is defined, there is [u]zero[/u] reason to believe that it is a viable option. [quote]That can go either way. But, life never has and never will arise from non life. [/quote] But yet God is alive right...? Either way that is a bald assertion, which you make for no reason other than ignorance. [quote]Therefore, it's more plausible that there is an eternal living entity that created everything. [/quote] And here is your specially pleading, after stating life cannot arise from non life...How is that not a contradiction? [b][u]In any case what did God create life out of, if not non life?..[/u][/b] [quote]Whether or not he used a mechanism like evolution is unknown, but naturalism has no basis in reality.[/quote] I don't particularly follow naturalism as well. It holds the mindset you have. You both assert one or the other. X is 100% true, Y is 100% false, with little understanding or none at all. All it does is make people biased and cause tunnel vision towards what they want to be true. Rather than what is actually true. Which is better gleamed by evidence, rather than assertions of what is possible because they haven't seen it happen. Just my 2 cents :/
-
Why can't life emerge from non-life? Who ever said that it can't? Because while it is kind of silly to propose that a fully-developed, complex organism arose from amino acids, that's not the case for abiogenesis. Who says that simple, base lifeforms can't develop from amino acids?
-
It's never been observed and there is nothing more than speculation regarding it.
-
So that doesn't mean its not possible...