thedepressedsquirrel

God can not be proven to not exist because he is omnipotent. All other supernatural people (i.e. santa) have specific conditions (i.e. come to house on christmas eve with gifts) that can be refuted (i.e. video of parents putting gifts under the tree on christmas eve and eating cookies meant for santa). But we don't look, feel or taste like cheese. Like I said above, cheese (like santa clause) has specific conditions that apply to it. God doesn't.

It's not logical to be a believer because there is more than one following to choose from and all of them claim to be the only right one. It's not logical to be a nonbeliever because you cannot refute something that is omnipotent. or: It's not logical to be a believer because god hasn't shown himself. It's not logical to be a nonbeliever because god hasn't shown himself. I don't see why that is so difficult to understand.

I am in a similar situation with a parakeet who recites my ex-girlfriend's livejournal continuously.

Oh yeah? Your country's food is horrible. :notalk:

It's called "soccer" kthx

Isn't that the sort of class where you learn how to use MS word and MS paint?

Actually that is called Lamarckism ("what happens to the parent is inherited by the child"), which is different from evolution and wrong. Different skin colors happened because levels of a certain vitamin vary depending on the intensity of the sun in the place where you live. This condition of having too little/too much of the vitamins caused certain skin colors to become more advantageous (protection against skin cancer and other stuff). Natural selection happens and gradually everyone in the population has that skin color.

http://www.ketv.com/news/9725203/detail.html She deserved it :shame:

I've always loved this picture: http://www.abcgallery.com/B/bruegel/bruegel50.html It's one of the things that I hope will be turned into a movie some day.

Maybe fossils aren't real and god injected fake age into them just like he did with everything else in our world.

Yeah, it was a saturday morning kids show. :ohnoes:

A cilium is a kind of flagella. That paragraph says that the flagella's evolution is simplified because scientists have discovered organisms that are simpler forms of it, meaning the flagella's parts are able to function on their own. The body doesn't tell the mutation that it doesn't help. Organisms and their mutations die because of competition for food, not because the body "judges" which mutations are better. The light sensitive patch didn't occur "uselessly thousands of times." In its most primitive state, it was able to tell the difference between light and dark. Then, future generations reshaped it until it provided true eyesight. Finally, a lens was added. As for the eye occurring in "weird places," those creatures would have had less chances for survival (competition for food and protection from predators) than creatures with eyes in the right places. Again, animals with weird/wrong eyes are not "judged" by their bodies. They die out because of competition. I think you're judging animals by complexity instead of by their ability to get food. In terms of the eyes, like I said above, animals with eyes in the wrong places could not get food like animals with eyes in the right places could. That is why they died out. In terms of apes and humans, however, neither one has a defect. Humans are smarter, obviously, because they are further down in the evolutionary chain, but an ape can get just as much food as a human can, so both species survive.

This time I searched for the wikipedia article before posting:

ghostranger: I think you skipped over my post or something. ------------------- Wouldn't an organism that has gone through thousands of years of adaptaion look completely different than its original form? So different that it is given a new name? Also, why is no one talking about my cartoon? :(

ghostranger: I think you skipped over my post or something. --------------------- Wouldn't an organism that has gone through thousands of years of adaptaion look completely different than its original form? So different that it is given a new name?

The tower of babel and various other cool stories explain those. I'd much rather talk about this:

The problem isn't whether or not god exists, since it is impossible to prove either way. The problem is why people are convinced that god is specifically christian/muslim/hindu/buddhist/rastafarian/voodo/etc. I get to post my cartoon again:

The useless flagellum/eye parts didn't benefit the organism, but they didn't harm it either, so they were allowed to survive. If you are right, then humans would die out because they have a useless thing called the appendix.

Unfortunately, most Christians don't agree with you (especially on your last sentence). No offense, but you are in the fringe of your religion. Also, I like cartoons a lot more than I like reading so here is what my next paragraph would have been about:

@piano: They follow their religious texts just like you follow yours. How come they are considered brainwashed but you are not?

So you think the suicide-bombing terrorists are right in killing themselves for their religion?

Cool. And if the muslims or somebody else turns out to be right we can burn in hellfire together :D

When you pick up the powerup, the opposing teams moves slower than your team. :( No one plays anymore.

Yeah, and there are over a hundred other religions, big and small, that tell me I should trust to become my lord and savior. Doesn't that make you even a little bit skeptical?

I was using the random page button in wikiquote and found this: