Quote from not bad

Yep, unproven. Like everything about the evolution theories.

First of I want to question the "natural selection" which means that in the long run the best adapted species are the ones that survive. However, I think that the strongest do not survive but the ones who are at the righ place at the right time do, why is this never mentioned? Ppl brag so much about how the world could easily be created by nothing but doesnt even mention this when they talk about the natural selection.

The carbon 14 method of dating: No evidence that is works AND it's said to ONLY work on EXTREMELY OLD objects... hmm... nothing suspicous there. Another example of its greatness is that scientists has dated the earth to be 4 billion years old but stars to be 16 billion.

"We have fossils"
Me: What is a fossil?
Answear: Nothing more than STONE.

Then we come scenarios which is impssible to explain withouth a God. For instance: DNA cannot be created without protein, RNA not be created without DNA and protein not created without RNA - what came first?

I disagree with your points, sir. But currently I lack the motivation to present a counter-argument. However, this is mostly because I don't understand your argument in the first place.
(Post this instead of a single image, you triple nigger)

WMAP has been able to determine these parameters with an accuracy of better than than 3% of the critical density. In turn, knowing the composition with this precision, we can estimate the age of the universe to about 1%: 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years!

pfft, only a matter of time before that meets other contradictions like everything else. Quick search through the internet shows impossible stars still are found which create confusion, http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/310981

Right. That's exactly what I meant when you said it's "only used to measure EXTREMELY OLD OBJECTS".

You cant prove anythings old (in this case 50k+) by just saying an object is old withouth any real evidence.

..between what? You haven't explained what you're trying to prove by calling fossils "stones", but there's a big difference between those and permineralized organic remains

You cant learn/prove much about evolution from a stone.

"The order in which the amino acids are added is read through the genetic code from an mRNA template" -- that is not how amino acids themselves are made, and the process behind their synthesis isn't reliant on RNA.

DNA and RNA consists of 4 different amino acids. Parts of RNA (3 acids at a time) are used as code when proteins are made.

"pfft, only a matter of time before that meets other contradictions like everything else."
YOU HAVEN"T PROVED ANY CONTRADICTIONS YOU IDIOT!!!

"You cant prove anythings old (in this case 50k+) by just saying an object is old withouth any real evidence"
If the carbon dating no longer works then it is older than 50k?
Plus you aren't really saying anything by saying carbon dating doesn't work are you? You haven't really connected it to your argument.

"You cant learn/prove much about evolution from a stone"
I'm sorry, but if you see a fossil of something which is a reptile, then more which look increasingly similar to birds, and you confirm how old they are and some are extinct, isn't it safe to say that they have evolved into each other? When we see genetic mutations occurring (and they do) we can recognise that mutation is possible. If it is possible it is a sufficient explanation for how they came into being, is it not? Furthermore, I don't get why saying its made out of rock is featuring as part of your argument? Sure, it is a rock. But things can fossilise, we know this, we've kinda proved it. Isn't it better to say something died and was fossilised rather than to say "a pine cone shaped rock appeared several million years ago, completely by chance!!! WOW!!!"

Furthermore, I'm going to launch an attack upon your argument that some stars are older than the universe: Right, we seem to have seen a star which is 13 billion years old, older than our estimate of the universe. if this is the case, isn't it better just to say that our estimation is wrong than turn to God? because if we turn to God, we are accepting that the entire universe is only 6,000 years old. however this just can't be the case if there are things in the universe older than 6000 years old. The fact that there are 13 billion old stars is actually a bigger argument against god than it is against the big bang theory dingus!


furthermore, since you have as of yet failed to defend against my arguments AGAINST god, he is, as of yet, an impossible being, as he is logically contradictory. Until you can attack my theories you my friend are screwed. because if god doesn't exist then the big big theory ect. are what we will turn to.

furthermore, there is no proof for god either. You have said intelligent design, but I am not going to accept that until you expand upon it. I will simply say Hume, Kant, Dawkins. there. intelligent design doesn't work.

1) intelligent design is simply another word for the teleological argument.

True, and Im no expert when it comes to that either. All I can say is that for instance is the eye and ear incredible complex organs, not a result of randomness.

2) Ockhams razor Sorry, that gravity example wasn't supposed to be a direct attack on either you or newton, it was simply an explanation of the principle
secondly, what I'm saying is simply that the universe has always been here. you don't need to have a god to explain it, simply saying it has always been explains it just as well. And don't use the cosmological argument to argue against that, it doesn't work.

I thought that too once, just for a moment. Then I realized it made no sence.

Okay, so, if God is benevolent, it means that he loves everything an infinite amount. Right, so why would you allow something you love infinitely to suffer at all?

God is also 100% righteus, I guess thats why. God also has so much respect for us that he lets us walk our own path.

PS: I'm also going to drop in another attack:
1) God is perfect.

Please quote from a place in the Bible that says God is static or "perfect".

okay, can god create a stone too heavy for himself to lift?

God is above logic and can make it too heavy for himself to lift it and then just lift it.

the euthyphro dilemma:

God is love and does whatever is right, to define moral u need to define love.

Quote from not bad

pfft, only a matter of time before that meets other contradictions like everything else. Quick search through the internet shows impossible stars still are found which create confusion, http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/310981

That title is sensationalist and you can't dismiss something because of the possibility that it might be proved wrong later. That's how science works. For now it's the best we have.

Proof is non-existent in matters like these.

Quote from not bad

You cant prove anythings old (in this case 50k+) by just saying an object is old withouth any real evidence.

That's why we don't use carbon-14 dating to determine the age of objects over 50,000 years old. Again, not really sure what you're trying to say here. What does this have to do with atheism?

Quote from not bad

You cant learn/prove much about evolution from a stone.

That's why we don't use stones to learn about evolution.

Quote from not bad

DNA and RNA consists of 4 different amino acids. Parts of RNA (3 acids at a time) are used as code when proteins are made.

They're made of nucleotides, which are comprised of nucleobases and other simple compounds. They aren't made of amino acids.

Again, you're demonstrating a clear inability to understand cellular biology. Please stop.

That title is sensationalist and you can't dismiss something because of the possibility that it might be proved wrong later. That's how science works. For now it's the best we have.

Proof is non-existent in matters like these.

Still, its just a theory.

That's why we don't use carbon-14 dating to determine the age of objects over 50,000 years old. Again, not really sure what you're trying to say here. What does this have to do with atheism?

My point is that you cant take an object, say that is is 50k-1000k years old withouth having the method which the object was dated with verified with tests on basis which we KNOW are true. Everything about math for instance can PROVED from the absolute truth that 1+1=2.

That's why we don't use stones to learn about evolution.

Fossils are stones.

They're made of nucleotides

Thats true, my bad. However DNA is still needed for RNA which u can agree on, RNA is needed for the process of making protein (amino acids comes before protein though).

"Thats true, my bad. However DNA is still needed for RNA which u can agree on, RNA is needed for the process of making protein (amino acids comes before protein though)."

Its like talking to a pigeon isn't it exilement? I feel your pain.
now, here I go: you IDIOT! that is not try! THIS IS WAY EXILEMENT HAS BEEN SAYING, DROP THE F***ing RNA already, what you just said is WRONG!!!!!!!!

Care to back me up with something exilement? you're going to have to phrase it in idiot-speakotherwise he won't get it, as he's made the same point, which he doesn't understand, about four times.

FURTHERMORE: " Everything about math for instance can PROVED from the absolute truth that 1+1=2."
Sorry to burst you bubble their mate, but you are inf act wrong about that.
IF the axiom 1+1=2 is correct THEN we know maths to be right
BUT you cannot prove that 1+1=2.

Go on, try, I dare you?

My guess is you just picked up two pens/pieces of paper/paper clips and said "look, 1+1=2"

But the problem here my friend is that you are using inductive reasoning. Only by using deductive reasoning can you PROVE something. All you are saying is that in every past instance when you have encountered 1+1 it has equaled 2. You simply cannot get any further, because inductive reasoning doesn't lead to absolute truth but simply a likely truth. So, for example this is an inductive argument:
1) Swan number 1 is white
2) swan numer 2 is white
3) swan number 3 is white
...
n) swan number n is white
CONCLUSION) swan number n+1 will be white too.

Can you see how that isn't proof? it just makes it likely that the swan is white? it is entirely possible that swan n+1 is black, but you won't know until you see it.

in the same way:
1) the first stone i saw when added to the second stone made 2 stones
...n) on the nth time i saw one stone and added it to another stone there were two stones.

You cannot prove 1+1=2. So that arguments bullish*t.
Oh how I love axioms, its so fun to see a mathematician realise his subject isn't provable!

SECONDLY: you're reasoning is kinda screwed up their. You're saying that because evolution cannot be proven by pure logic, then it isn't true.

However God cannot be proven by pure logic. whats more he can't be proven or even hinted at by empirical evidence. he is a completely unverifiable entity.

Furthermore, i would quite like to actually debate here, so can you at least reply to my posts? Either provide a counter argument or concede their truth? Because just ignoring them isn't clever: it just tells us you cannot think of an argument against them and hence proves your theory wrong. Sorry mate, God doesn't exist. You're an idiot if you've read my arguments and still believe it.

Secondly, your intelligent design argument needs support. post something.

Walker, one more needless insult and you're getting infractioned. It would be nice if you quit all the caps/exclamation marks too, but I guess those aren't against the rules.

Quote from not bad

Still, its just a theory.

So what? Theism and creationism are just hypotheses. Untested ones at that.

Theories are verified by exhaustive amounts of evidence, fact-checking and experimentation. Calling it what it is, a theory, doesn't make it any less invalid. If you have nothing else to contribute then you're wasting everyone's time.

Quote from not bad

My point is that you cant take an object, say that is is 50k-1000k years old withouth having the method which the object was dated with verified with tests on basis which we KNOW are true. Everything about math for instance can PROVED from the absolute truth that 1+1=2.

I still don't see how this relates to atheism or "unproven theories" in general.

Quote from not bad

Fossils are stones.

No they aren't and even if they are, the theory of evolution would exist in its current form without a fossil record.

Evolution occurs, that's an undeniable fact and it has been for the last century. How it leads to complex life is what the theory pertains to, and it has nothing to do with fossils.

Again, the fact that you don't know this is yet another display of your ignorance. Why do you keep arguing about a matter you don't know anything about? This is embarrassing.

Quote from not bad

Thats true, my bad. However DNA is still needed for RNA which u can agree on, RNA is needed for the process of making protein (amino acids comes before protein though).

Okay? So DNA is used as a template for RNA synthesis, and mRNA is used as a template for protein synthesis. That's all a very simplified explanation but, where's the problem here?

Also, RNA transcription only uses DNA as a template because DNA data storage is more stable. Without DNA, RNA can still replicate using an RNA-dependent polymerase instead of a typical DNA-dependent one. So DNA is still not universally necessary for RNA replication, it's just more convenient in organisms which contain both.

Quote from Devour

Walker, one more needless insult and you're getting infractioned. It would be nice if you quit all the caps/exclamation marks too, but I guess those aren't against the rules.

It's frustrating when people come into the debate section, start a debate, and then refuse to engage the people who join it in any sort of intellectual discourse. Or even attempt to do so.

As far as infractions go, I think expressing that frustration is a little more justifiable than the complete lack of effort on not_bad's part. Especially when one person has participated in some pretty good debates and another is some new member who isn't even trying.

But whatever, it's your call.

Quote from not bad

True, and Im no expert when it comes to that either. All I can say is that for instance is the eye and ear incredible complex organs, not a result of randomness.

Let's say you throw 10 standard dice, that is, six sides. You get a sequence of 10 numbers, the values of the dice that are facing upwards, and write them down. The chance of one particular number appearing on a die is 1/6, and the chance of two particular numbers appearing on two different dice at the same time is 1/6*1/6 which is 1/36. Continuing on this pattern, we see that the chance of that particular sequence of 10 values for dice appearing is 1/60,466,176. And yet you just did it with absolutely no difficulty.
What I am trying to say is that just because something is extremely unlikely to develop in one specific way, has no merit on whether or not it is possible to happen. By the sole idea that there is a finite chance of it occurring, it must be possible. There is literally NO REASON that an organ as complicated as the eye or the ear can't appear by regular evolutionary development.

Regardless of any of that, evolution is not a random process. There are very good reasons why some organisms survive, and others don't.

It's also not a leap from non-existence to complexity. Evolution occurs on a timescale that the human brain literally cannot conceptualize. Minor changes to simple structures over millions of generations is a perfectly acceptable theory to the emergence of complex structures.

An intelligent designer might explain it in a relatively easier way, but it fails to explain the flaws that are only possible through evolution. Why would a designer create viruses that only reproduce by infiltrating, taking over and destroying a host cell? Why would we get cancer, or an auto-immune disease where our body literally attacks itself? That's not intelligent design.

That works as an argument, Fusion, but isn't perhaps the best attack upon intelligent design: the theories of Dawkins however are (sorry if I get on a high horse here, I've got an exam on the teleological argument in 3 weeks so I'm pretty obsessed with it at the moment. Just hoping for that hundred UMS!) because he has targeted it directly with some pretty good theories.
So, the theory of intelligent design in short: Not_bad, I believe you are arguing that an organ such as an eye is too complex to have occurred by evolution and instead must be designed? This I believe is a paraphrasing of the works of biologist Behe who proposed intelligent design. So, behest theory:
Behe looked at organs such as the eye, and proposed that they were irreducibly complex. Basically, he argued that they were made yup of many many different parts. so the eye is made up of the retina, lens ect. He argued that if even one of these parts is missing, then the eye will no longer function: so if the lens is missing it won't refract light. Therefore, the eye cannot have evolved gradually: if one aspect of the eye were to have evolved it would not function and therefore cannot have conferred any evolutionary advantage: so if there were just a lens then there would be no reason for it to be passed on, making it spread through the rest of the population. This would appear at first to show that the eye cannot have evolved gradually: instead the only reason an eye would be more likley to be passed on is if it were created fully formed: mutations that complex simply don't happen on the spot and as such must have been designed. (this appears to go against your argument fusion, kinda making it a bit invalid, however that doesn't matter when we bring in dawkins later.)

I believe that is the theory of intelligent design you are using? Correct me if I'm wrong. I will go on after that to list dawkins arguments, but I'd raher hear your confirmation first.

EDIT: to be honest exilement, because of behest arguments, that theory doesn't work unless you can, like dawkins, show that there is no such thing as irreducibly complex. it kinda goes against the theory of evolution. However I won't list his arguments until I have confirmation over whether or not this is the theory I should be attacking, as I suspect it is entirely possible for our opponent to argue, just because I show this argument to fail, that this isn't the one he was proposing. I would rather hear his views first. For now, without dawkins, I would argue that intelligent design is a good theory.

Thing is, we do ave dawkins, so as well.