- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

i dont believe in god

#53

@Dukedog said in #2:

I agree with you.However one must respect the beliefs of others whether we agree with them or not.
Generally such topics are not a good idea because they inevitably lead to arguments
Yeah

@Dukedog said in #2: > I agree with you.However one must respect the beliefs of others whether we agree with them or not. > Generally such topics are not a good idea because they inevitably lead to arguments Yeah
#54

@TCF_Namelecc said in #25:

Intelligent design and creationism can’t be refuted. It’s in some ways flawed (if you contend that a design needs a designer, then who designed the designer) and ironically relies on the tenet that “things are so amazingly complex that we should stop thinking and questioning them and instead just accept God”.

If God indeed made you to be intelligent, he/she/it would be incredibly disappointed in your lack of scientific vigor and questioning. Questioning everything is what made us able to understand the world as much as we do now (which in the scheme of things isn’t much, but it’s something ).

I don’t claim to understand the universe. I humbly admit that it’s beautiful and complex, so much so that I will indeed never understand it. But I’ll keep trying. For those of you that think you’ve figured it out already, you have a lot of nerve.
If people ask "who designed the designer" then it'll just go on forever and result in no conclusion.

@TCF_Namelecc said in #25: > Intelligent design and creationism can’t be refuted. It’s in some ways flawed (if you contend that a design needs a designer, then who designed the designer) and ironically relies on the tenet that “things are so amazingly complex that we should stop thinking and questioning them and instead just accept God”. > > If God indeed made you to be intelligent, he/she/it would be incredibly disappointed in your lack of scientific vigor and questioning. Questioning everything is what made us able to understand the world as much as we do now (which in the scheme of things isn’t much, but it’s something ). > > I don’t claim to understand the universe. I humbly admit that it’s beautiful and complex, so much so that I will indeed never understand it. But I’ll keep trying. For those of you that think you’ve figured it out already, you have a lot of nerve. If people ask "who designed the designer" then it'll just go on forever and result in no conclusion.
#55

@ashwin_subbaiyan said in #1:

i dont believe in god i believe in science tell me your opinion

I believe that if you believe science, you are as gullible as if you believe in any religion, or astrology, ufology, or any other "ogy".

You dont have to believe or trust science. You have to understand it.

@ashwin_subbaiyan said in #1: > i dont believe in god i believe in science tell me your opinion I believe that if you believe science, you are as gullible as if you believe in any religion, or astrology, ufology, or any other "ogy". You dont have to believe or trust science. You have to understand it.
#56

@ShootingStar34 said in #54:

If people ask "who designed the designer" then it'll just go on forever and result in no conclusion.

Correct. That’s exactly the point. The universe is complicated.

@ShootingStar34 said in #54: > If people ask "who designed the designer" then it'll just go on forever and result in no conclusion. Correct. That’s exactly the point. The universe is complicated.
#57

@DeadlyGambits said in #22:

ahhhhh, if you think Jesus wrote that, why?
Explain pls.
Because jesus come to earth

@DeadlyGambits said in #22: > ahhhhh, if you think Jesus wrote that, why? > Explain pls. Because jesus come to earth
#58

@natbee56 said in #57:

Because jesus come to earth
nonsense

@natbee56 said in #57: > Because jesus come to earth nonsense
#60

bro why is this going on so long i wanted opinions not fights like just nvm stop

bro why is this going on so long i wanted opinions not fights like just nvm stop
#61

Evolution is basically like a religion with no evidience

Let's talk about fossils for a minute... What do we know when we dig up bones in the dirt that have been fossilized... We know that a certain kind of creature DIED....
Do we know if that SPECIFIC creature had parents, grandparents (etc) or great great grandparents that were morphologically different than the creature represented by those bones? NOPE...
Do you know if the creature from those bones had any kids? NOPE
Do you know if they had any grandkids or great great grandkids? NOPE
Assuming it DID have great great grandkids, do we know if they would have been different then them in any way? NOPE.....
You see, what is being done here is wishful speculation, hopeful assumptions, optimistic guesses, and just so stories are being lauded as SCIENCE.... That is NOT science... It is a philosophy of Metaphysical Naturalism where "long ago and far away" creatures were able to do things that we DON'T OBSERVE (Scientific method) Today!!!

Here, let's see what PROMINENT EVOLUTIONARY PALEONTOLOGISTS have said about the "fossil record" Do YOU know more than them about the subject then Gould and Patterson??

Dr Colin Patterson, who was the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History. Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution. Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. ... You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’..

Evolution is basically like a religion with no evidience Let's talk about fossils for a minute... What do we know when we dig up bones in the dirt that have been fossilized... We know that a certain kind of creature DIED.... Do we know if that SPECIFIC creature had parents, grandparents (etc) or great great grandparents that were morphologically different than the creature represented by those bones? NOPE... Do you know if the creature from those bones had any kids? NOPE Do you know if they had any grandkids or great great grandkids? NOPE Assuming it DID have great great grandkids, do we know if they would have been different then them in any way? NOPE..... You see, what is being done here is wishful speculation, hopeful assumptions, optimistic guesses, and just so stories are being lauded as SCIENCE.... That is NOT science... It is a philosophy of Metaphysical Naturalism where "long ago and far away" creatures were able to do things that we DON'T OBSERVE (Scientific method) Today!!! Here, let's see what PROMINENT EVOLUTIONARY PALEONTOLOGISTS have said about the "fossil record" Do YOU know more than them about the subject then Gould and Patterson?? Dr Colin Patterson, who was the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History. Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution. Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma: ‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’ He went on to say: ‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. ... You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’..

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.