thank you bro your a genius dovah ....all that matters are FACTS.....i dont have to disprove anything when there is no proof of that...but dovah, i think you already mentioned that the strict believers are talking shit and believe in a "unicorn"

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

Bertrand Russell (1872–1970)


so if you believe in god you should believe in exactly the same way into the china teapot, you cannnot proof that the teapot does not exist but you just believe that IT DOES..right?

NOW YOU CAN JUDGE ME THETHERONE

Post edited 2012-02-25 08:29:55

and just saying: 500 years ago you would have been one of the strict believers that would have said that the earth is a disc because this is the easiest explanation for you and you just WANT TO BELIEVE...you have no proof but every other guy who says earth is not a disc is stupid

This is what I was trying to explain. Darwin: , "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex.

FACT: Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

I only express opinions based on what I believe to be true.. I wasnt attempting to "talk shit" as you like to put it. I dont see the need to try and be a complete asshole on the internet, I would rather do that to your face. Im not trying to prove God.. I know I cant prove that there is a God. If I could there would be no need for this thread. The fact of the matter is that I believe in something different than you. So, naturally, that makes me a moron with a low IQ that apparently doesnt know how to read or something? Im not gonna even give you the pleasure of a response if your gonna keep acting like a fuckin punk. And no, I still wont judge you. What you believe isnt as big of a deal to me as it obviously is to you what I believe. I dont want to convert you.. I was just giving my two-cents because monStaaa asked a few questions. I dont mind a debate.. but dont be a prick.

and just saying: and of course you would have jumped right on board with someone telling you that the earth was round.. Even though practically no one else believed that at the time because it was such a radical idea.. and only the bravest would venture the open see because fear of whirlpools sea creatures and falling off the edge of the earth. RIIIIIGGHHHTT... it wasnt a minority that believed the earth was flat. you would have believed the same shit.