Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Trackaholic wrote:

SourWorms wrote:And die-hard Catholics try to disprove everything that is so blatent in front of their eyes. The article you gave even suggest that Lucy was not a mere monkey

Sure, it also proves it aint a fucking Australopithecus afarensis from 100 billion trillion years ago.

lol +1

lots of people are wasting their time then..

Trackaholic wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:So it appears as though it is obvious that Trackaholic is stumped and cannot explain how it is possible that Dinosaurs and Humans coexisted.

Riddle me this: Why can't we find human fossils dating to the same time as dinosaur fossils? If they coexisted we would surely be able to find contemporaneous fossil records.

If there were only a few humans coexisting with dinosaurs then it would be pretty hard to find their remains.

Ok, then how come no remains showed up until 130,000 years ago? It seems like if they did, there would have been at least 1 fossil in those millions of years since the dinosaurs died out.

Not only is the reliability that the technology dating those fossils dubious, but just because because scientists havent found any fossils supposedly predating them does not mean that no humans existed before them.

theories, theories, theories.

that is the classic answer for any bible-thumper. God did it! The scientists are wrong! Carbon Dating? Load of crap! Its all a conspiracy!

God did it!

did what?

The scientists are wrong!

they can't be? They have been wrong before.

Carbon Dating? Load of crap!

And how do you know it isnt?

Its all a conspiracy!

Some people will go to any lengths to prove there is no god, because they are afraid of hellfire. but no not everything is a conspiracy, some people are just idiots.

and I am not a bible thumper, you brung the bible verses first. I am just feeding you your own medicine.

Do you even know how carbon dating works? Im guessing not, and don't go look it up like I know you will.

So you are basically suggesting that people are falisfying the results of carbon dating to prove there is no God? Possibly even planting fossils or taking them away to disprove God?

Tell me why carbon dating is totally, 100%, no questiosn asked, reliable.
Cause it isnt man, and you know it.

Your right, it is not 100% reliable, nothing is. But it is 99% accurate

1% can go a long way.

TnF_T wrote:lots of people are wasting their time then..

OK. COOL.

Trackaholic wrote:And why wouldnt they? if somebody can disprove the possibilty of god, that means there is no need for ethics, morals, anything. man can pursue earthly pleasures without regret. Booze, sex, porn, racism, etc. man can sin all he wants.

I am sure plenty of people would love to hear that.

I don't do any of those things without the guidance of God. I still have morals and live a good life. Unless you are completetly weak, you can handle yourself.

Trackaholic wrote:1% can go a long way.

specially' when your talking millions of years.

Trackaholic wrote:1% can go a long way.

Not really. 1% of 65 million still puts dinosaurs nowhere near humans

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:And why wouldnt they? if somebody can disprove the possibilty of god, that means there is no need for ethics, morals, anything. man can pursue earthly pleasures without regret. Booze, sex, porn, racism, etc. man can sin all he wants.

I am sure plenty of people would love to hear that.

I don't do any of those things without the guidance of God. I still have morals and live a good life. Unless you are completetly weak, you can handle yourself.

I was not talking about you dude. I was talking about everyone. there are people out there who fear god, so they try to disprove he exists.

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:1% can go a long way.

Not really. 1% of 65 million still puts dinosaurs nowhere near humans

but that 1% can render the other 99% completely false, I listened to a guy rant about it for an hour on the radion once.

No that is not true. If they do not believe he exists, they certainly do not fear him.

Trackaholic wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:1% can go a long way.

Not really. 1% of 65 million still puts dinosaurs nowhere near humans

but that 1% can render the other 99% completely false, I listened to a guy rant about it for an hour on the radion once.

but you cannot say that every test that has been done on fossils has fallen into that 1% margin of error. Shroud of Turin? Multiple tests done, and I'm guessing not all of them were false

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:And why wouldnt they? if somebody can disprove the possibilty of god, that means there is no need for ethics, morals, anything. man can pursue earthly pleasures without regret. Booze, sex, porn, racism, etc. man can sin all he wants.

I am sure plenty of people would love to hear that.

I don't do any of those things without the guidance of God. I still have morals and live a good life. Unless you are completetly weak, you can handle yourself.

no, you really can't. i bet you still sin, even if it isn't anything big.

Ok i still sin by your definition just like everyone else, but I still deal with it.

if the scientists did 100 tests, they would pick the 1 test that proves them right.

reverse the tables.

what if 99% of the tests proved them wrong?

but they do 100+ tests.

Finally, they get the result they want after 100+ tests have undergone.

they are gonna take the 1 test out of a hundred that proves them right, and reveal it to the public as the "results".

That 1 percent could be your side of the story. not mine.

SourWorms wrote:No that is not true. If they do not believe he exists, they certainly do not fear him.

but everyone wonders at one point, whether they're atheists or agnostic, if there really is a God up there. they get scared, and try to scrounge up facts and try to make them look like they disprove God.

yes, i'll admit that some weak christians do that too though.

Trackaholic wrote:if the scientists did 100 tests, they would pick the 1 test that proves them right.

reverse the tables.

what if 99% of the tests proved them wrong?

but they do 100+ tests.

Finally, they get the result they want after 100+ tests have undergone.

they are gonna take the 1 test out of a hundred that proves them right, and reveal it to the public as the "results".

That 1 percent could be your side of the story. not mine.

That's a fair point, but how would you prove that?

AudienceOfOne wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:And why wouldnt they? if somebody can disprove the possibilty of god, that means there is no need for ethics, morals, anything. man can pursue earthly pleasures without regret. Booze, sex, porn, racism, etc. man can sin all he wants.

I am sure plenty of people would love to hear that.

I don't do any of those things without the guidance of God. I still have morals and live a good life. Unless you are completetly weak, you can handle yourself.

no, you really can't. i bet you still sin, even if it isn't anything big.

he didnt say he didnt sin, he said he had morals and lives a good life. Which I believe. just cause a person is an athiest does not mean they are an evil sinner. I dont think sourworms is an evil sinner simply because he does not believe what I believe. For all I know, sourworms could be a better person than I am by a hundred fold.

AudienceOfOne wrote:

SourWorms wrote:No that is not true. If they do not believe he exists, they certainly do not fear him.

but everyone wonders at one point, whether they're atheists or agnostic, if there really is a God up there. they get scared, and try to scrounge up facts and try to make them look like they disprove God.

yes, i'll admit that some weak christians do that too though.

Don't get me started on traditionalists....

SourWorms wrote:Ok i still sin by your definition just like everyone else, but I still deal with it.

how do you deal with it?

FK wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

SourWorms wrote:No that is not true. If they do not believe he exists, they certainly do not fear him.

but everyone wonders at one point, whether they're atheists or agnostic, if there really is a God up there. they get scared, and try to scrounge up facts and try to make them look like they disprove God.

yes, i'll admit that some weak christians do that too though.

Don't get me started on traditionalists....

don't get me started on people that don't know anything about God.....

Trackaholic wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:And why wouldnt they? if somebody can disprove the possibilty of god, that means there is no need for ethics, morals, anything. man can pursue earthly pleasures without regret. Booze, sex, porn, racism, etc. man can sin all he wants.

I am sure plenty of people would love to hear that.

I don't do any of those things without the guidance of God. I still have morals and live a good life. Unless you are completetly weak, you can handle yourself.

no, you really can't. i bet you still sin, even if it isn't anything big.

he didnt say he didnt sin, he said he had morals and lives a good life. Which I believe. just cause a person is an athiest does not mean they are an evil sinner. I dont think sourworms is an evil sinner simply because he does not believe what I believe. For all I know, sourworms could be a better person than I am by a hundred fold.

not in God's eyes though. and that's the only thing that matters.

FK wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:if the scientists did 100 tests, they would pick the 1 test that proves them right.

reverse the tables.

what if 99% of the tests proved them wrong?

but they do 100+ tests.

Finally, they get the result they want after 100+ tests have undergone.

they are gonna take the 1 test out of a hundred that proves them right, and reveal it to the public as the "results".

That 1 percent could be your side of the story. not mine.

That's a fair point, but how would you prove that?

It cannot be proven, but neither can the reverse.
I know when I listened to that guy on the radio ( i so wish I could remmeber his name irght now) he said that the scientists picked the 1% that proved them right and disregarded the 99% that proved them wrong.

But I cannot be sure that guy was telling the truth. but neither can sourworms be sure his scientists are either.

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:And why wouldnt they? if somebody can disprove the possibilty of god, that means there is no need for ethics, morals, anything. man can pursue earthly pleasures without regret. Booze, sex, porn, racism, etc. man can sin all he wants.

I am sure plenty of people would love to hear that.

I don't do any of those things without the guidance of God. I still have morals and live a good life. Unless you are completetly weak, you can handle yourself.

no, you really can't. i bet you still sin, even if it isn't anything big.

he didnt say he didnt sin, he said he had morals and lives a good life. Which I believe. just cause a person is an athiest does not mean they are an evil sinner. I dont think sourworms is an evil sinner simply because he does not believe what I believe. For all I know, sourworms could be a better person than I am by a hundred fold.

not in God's eyes though. and that's the only thing that matters.

Well in the end, I could still always go to hell and sourworms could be a convert later in life and go to heaven.

Trackaholic wrote:

FK wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:if the scientists did 100 tests, they would pick the 1 test that proves them right.

reverse the tables.

what if 99% of the tests proved them wrong?

but they do 100+ tests.

Finally, they get the result they want after 100+ tests have undergone.

they are gonna take the 1 test out of a hundred that proves them right, and reveal it to the public as the "results".

That 1 percent could be your side of the story. not mine.

That's a fair point, but how would you prove that?

It cannot be proven, but neither can the reverse.
I know when I listened to that guy on the radio ( i so wish I could remmeber his name irght now) he said that the scientists picked the 1% that proved them right and disregarded the 99% that proved them wrong.

But I cannot be sure that guy was telling the truth. but neither can sourworms be sure his scientists are either.

+1, there's always a chance that the scientists are biased.