Bill Gates: There's no scientific explanation of how it (the universe) came about!
Options
Comments
-
Dang j beezy you just DPG'd all atheists hopes and dreams! Complete annihilation!
http://youtu.be/vsfzAvOrjrc -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »I see atheist still avoiding j beezy nuclear bomb like the plague!
Question: (simplified version)
HOW DOES NON-LIFE PRODUCE LIFE?
http://youtu.be/K8E_zMLCRNg
an atheist would say a process called abiogenesis but really they don't have a clue, because when you look into it abiogenesis is pure ? . If you have a problem with evolution trust me you don't want to get into abiogenesis. -
The thing with atheist who stand on science for their non belief is that they believe that all things happened by chance they believe that the universe popped into existence by chance in physics this popping is called quantum fluctuations in a vaccum.
In biology it's abiogenesis, The universe is just a result of good luck to them despite all the signs of order to existence they ultimately think it is all just random.
That way of thinking is ? stupid to me because the only objective reality is that we choose what we want to believe.
-
lol tell me how..Osirus_Jenkins wrote: »Shizlansky wrote: »damobb2deep wrote: »
but how if the creature didnt have feathers before?damobb2deep wrote: »Thing is, birds did come from dinosaurs but pigs have never had one species down its evolutionary line that had wings, or even hinted at it.
That's why I'm saying it's silly, it's unheard of and is illogical.
but before came no other animal had feathers... so who is 2 say it cant happen 200 million years from now according 2 evolution...
under the laws of evolution it is possible for another creature to appear with feathers
Bruh, you can't be this stupid.
Yes he can
-
I should've specified, I was speaking in regards to the giraffes.
If in fact the females could eat from lower food sources couldn't the males just do the same thing thus having no reason to evolve?
Evolution supposedly happens based on an environmental change but the terms presented for giraffes there was no need for such a change if what you say is true.
If they could just eat from other sources why evolve?
To not compete with females for food could be one answer, but it could be the general difference between males and females giraffes, Also change due to environment is only one tenet of evolution.
It's silly to assume that because male giraffes have longer necks than females that the females would die. "Long" and "short" are relative.
Why are human males taller than human females on average? Human males are bigger, faster and stronger than human females we should have eaten all the food and they should have died out....right?
stop it, that's a horrible comparison and i'm sure you know that.
Darwin and Lamarck both have said that would be a reason for supposed evolution.
They said food sources were limited because of droughts in Africa and the only way for giraffes were able to survive were to evolve to have longer necks for higher food sources.
It would be even more "silly" to believe the only food source for giraffes would be tall trees which evolutionists believe was the case. but alas that was not the case.
as you can see from the image giraffes are more than capable of feeding from sources on the ground
Now if that was the case other animals would've died out simply because they were all fighting for the same food source. no? -
Who exactly said the bolded? Link it.I should've specified, I was speaking in regards to the giraffes.
If in fact the females could eat from lower food sources couldn't the males just do the same thing thus having no reason to evolve?
Evolution supposedly happens based on an environmental change but the terms presented for giraffes there was no need for such a change if what you say is true.
If they could just eat from other sources why evolve?
To not compete with females for food could be one answer, but it could be the general difference between males and females giraffes, Also change due to environment is only one tenet of evolution.
It's silly to assume that because male giraffes have longer necks than females that the females would die. "Long" and "short" are relative.
Why are human males taller than human females on average? Human males are bigger, faster and stronger than human females we should have eaten all the food and they should have died out....right?
stop it, that's a horrible comparison and i'm sure you know that.
Darwin and Lamarck both have said that would be a reason for supposed evolution.
They said food sources were limited because of droughts in Africa and the only way for giraffes were able to survive were to evolve to have longer necks for higher food sources.
It would be even more "silly" to believe the only food source for giraffes would be tall trees which evolutionists believe was the case. but alas that was not the case.
as you can see from the image giraffes are more than capable of feeding from sources on the ground
Now if that was the case other animals would've died out simply because they were all fighting for the same food source. no?
-
I should've specified, I was speaking in regards to the giraffes.
If in fact the females could eat from lower food sources couldn't the males just do the same thing thus having no reason to evolve?
Evolution supposedly happens based on an environmental change but the terms presented for giraffes there was no need for such a change if what you say is true.
If they could just eat from other sources why evolve?
I was speaking more in general about how animals adapt. It's not always about food source. Part of it could be sexual selection. It could be that better food was found higher up. It can be many factors undetermined. Like i said, studies are still being done. I know males use their long necks for engagement so i could be a dominance thing like having pretty feathers or a fat ass as opposed to big ? . -
Science is about studying these things and not jumping to conclusions. Not to say some don't but, that doesn't mean it will not be challenged, corrected, or elaborated upon.
newscientist.com/article/dn19135-zoologger-how-did-the-giraffe-get-its-long-neck.html#.UzESbNcqUcgMost people assume that giraffes' long necks evolved to help them feed. If you have a long neck, runs the argument, you can eat leaves on tall trees that your rivals can't reach. But there is another possibility. The prodigious necks may have little to do with food, and everything to do with sex.
-
Question. Why is it that this discussion became one about evolution? Why is the topic of evolution proof or non proof that ? exist? Where is the evidence for that and why isn't that challenged? We were speaking on the discovery of the expansion of the universe and evolution comes up. Is this the go to argument? Even people who believe in ? don't discount evolution. Even if it was completely fabricated, what does that have to do with the question of ? or the question of the origin of the universe and how do you know what ? did to create everything (besides scripture)?
-
You guys still debating?
-
@Thread Starter, I'm still fairly new here (can't even make new threads yet) and I'm curious... are you seriously trying to witness online or is this just your internet schtick?
-
FuriousOne wrote: »Question. Why is it that this discussion became one about evolution? Why is the topic of evolution proof or non proof that ? exist? Where is the evidence for that and why isn't that challenged? We were speaking on the discovery of the expansion of the universe and evolution comes up. Is this the go to argument? Even people who believe in ? don't discount evolution. Even if it was completely fabricated, what does that have to do with the question of ? or the question of the origin of the universe and how do you know what ? did to create everything (besides scripture)?
Evolution goes against the word of ? . Genesis 1 and 2 gives the origins of creation. Different parts of the creation were created on different days. Adam even gives names to ALL the animals that ? created, so how can evolution be true when ? specifically stated that everything was created after it's "own kind"?
The focus of evolution is not to explain the origins of man, but to deny the existence of ? . That's the cold hard truth. But sadly evolution still can't explain how non-life produces life, why the fossil record lacks proof, and why there's no progress of development. 3 big blanks, but there are many more that I could name as well.
Frankly evolution has more holes in it than all the swiss cheese in the world combined. The theory is deader than a dodo bird. It's complete malarkey. But when you believe the lie, you will do anything to defend it; even when you know it's complete horse manure just so you don't have to admit you're wrong. That's pride at it's worst. No wonder the father of all lies is the enemy himself, the root of the stench of pride. Amen.
-
EmperorRises wrote: »You guys still debating?
Nah, just discussing truth. -
@Thread Starter, I'm still fairly new here (can't even make new threads yet) and I'm curious... are you seriously trying to witness online or is this just your internet schtick?
I witness 24/7 my friend. The great commission tells all the followers of Jesus Christ to go out into all the world and make disciples, teaching them everything that He commands and baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But how can anybody believe unless they first hear? Thus, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of ? .
This is my full time occupation. I'm actually attending seminary to be ordained to preach. One day, LORD willing, I will walk into my destiny which will be in Jerusalem. Hallelujah!
Do you believe in the LORD Jesus Christ?
-
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »Question. Why is it that this discussion became one about evolution? Why is the topic of evolution proof or non proof that ? exist? Where is the evidence for that and why isn't that challenged? We were speaking on the discovery of the expansion of the universe and evolution comes up. Is this the go to argument? Even people who believe in ? don't discount evolution. Even if it was completely fabricated, what does that have to do with the question of ? or the question of the origin of the universe and how do you know what ? did to create everything (besides scripture)?
Evolution goes against the word of ? . Genesis 1 and 2 gives the origins of creation. Different parts of the creation were created on different days. Adam even gives names to ALL the animals that ? created, so how can evolution be true when ? specifically stated that everything was created after it's "own kind"?
The focus of evolution is not to explain the origins of man, but to deny the existence of ? . That's the cold hard truth. But sadly evolution still can't explain how non-life produces life, why the fossil record lacks proof, and why there's no progress of development. 3 big blanks, but there are many more that I could name as well.
Frankly evolution has more holes in it than all the swiss cheese in the world combined. The theory is deader than a dodo bird. It's complete malarkey. But when you believe the lie, you will do anything to defend it; even when you know it's complete horse manure just so you don't have to admit you're wrong. That's pride at it's worst. No wonder the father of all lies is the enemy himself, the root of the stench of pride. Amen.
For whatever holes that evolution has, all you have is an old moldy book written by charlatans. Actually you don't have that, your original documents were lost and rewritten by Kings and Caesars. I guess you also have a hope and faith. What you don't have is truth. But ? it, it's your life. I just would like you religious weirdos to stop trying to infringe on the lives of others with your ? up politics like the current Supreme Court case. -
FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »Question. Why is it that this discussion became one about evolution? Why is the topic of evolution proof or non proof that ? exist? Where is the evidence for that and why isn't that challenged? We were speaking on the discovery of the expansion of the universe and evolution comes up. Is this the go to argument? Even people who believe in ? don't discount evolution. Even if it was completely fabricated, what does that have to do with the question of ? or the question of the origin of the universe and how do you know what ? did to create everything (besides scripture)?
Evolution goes against the word of ? . Genesis 1 and 2 gives the origins of creation. Different parts of the creation were created on different days. Adam even gives names to ALL the animals that ? created, so how can evolution be true when ? specifically stated that everything was created after it's "own kind"?
The focus of evolution is not to explain the origins of man, but to deny the existence of ? . That's the cold hard truth. But sadly evolution still can't explain how non-life produces life, why the fossil record lacks proof, and why there's no progress of development. 3 big blanks, but there are many more that I could name as well.
Frankly evolution has more holes in it than all the swiss cheese in the world combined. The theory is deader than a dodo bird. It's complete malarkey. But when you believe the lie, you will do anything to defend it; even when you know it's complete horse manure just so you don't have to admit you're wrong. That's pride at it's worst. No wonder the father of all lies is the enemy himself, the root of the stench of pride. Amen.
For whatever holes that evolution has, all you have is an old moldy book written by charlatans. Actually you don't have that, your original documents were lost and rewritten by Kings and Caesars. I guess you also have a hope and faith. What you don't have is truth. But ? it, it's your life. I just would like you religious weirdos to stop trying to infringe on the lives of others with your ? up politics like the current Supreme Court case.
1. Might want to research the dead sea scrolls for info about Old Testament manuscripts
2. For New Testament you can check this site out. http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
cliffs:
"There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity."
-2nd closest is Homers (illiad) with 643 copies.
3. Jesus Christ gave His disciples the command to go forth and preach the gospel to every creature on planet earth. Those who believe will be saved, those who don't won't. Amen.
4. Will you say the sinners prayer with me today? -
Dear Heavenly cuzz! I come to you humbled and bewildered my ? !
-
Dear Heavenly cuzz! I come to you humbled and bewildered my ? !
Oh, they tell me of a home far beyond the skies,
Oh, they tell me of a home far away;
Oh, they tell me of a home where no storm clouds rise,
Oh, they tell me of an unclouded day.
Oh, they tell me of a King in His beauty there,
And they tell me that mine eyes shall behold Him in the skies
Where He sits upon the throne that is whiter than snow,
In the city that is made of gold.
Do you want to go there? -
"Listen--science and technology rules our world and it will continue to do so.Mankind has come so far not because of religion;
Science,free thinkers,and technology has brought us this far.While some black men look for answers in religion, the white man look for solutions in science.
Religion almost always stiffles free thought and innovation.Religion controls and instills fear;religous types have monopolise morality and preach religious hatred Religion want to keep you in the dark,in your cocoon. Science on the other hand liberates the very best of human ingenuity by means of reasoning, experimentation,exploration and adventurism"
History says otherwise it was religion that put the european on the track to rule the world not science the same goes for the arab.
That's both correct and incorrect. Religion is responsible for the European Crusades, as well as the European dark ages. From a technological standpoint, religion set Europe back a good 400 years of potential advancements. Both were large-scale crimes against humanity
Is it any wonder why the Europeans immediately started stealing from/ stealing Africans around that time? Anything Christianity touches becomes tainted. The continent of Africa is the only example u should need but the same applies to the Americas as well -
damobb2deep wrote: »
regardless of that u cant have it both ways..... you can't say "birds came from reptiles" yet get mad when we say pigs cant grow wings...damobb2deep wrote: »You guys are funny w all the evolution nonsense like, "pigs don't have wings".
That's not how evolution works.
Plus, there's numerous species of pig, that is evolution of the pig.
you missing the point.. evolution states that something over millions of years can become somthing else... (reptiles apparently evolved into some species of birds for example) how can that happen if reptiles cant become birds... (or grow feathers)
How do you know that dinosaurs didn't evolve into birds?
Do you realize that these aren't baseless claims but claims based on research through fossil records?
You're very stupid
-
-
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »
you don't dictate your evolutionary changes, your environment does. you don't just randomly decide to become something different & then it happens.I don't get why a pig wouldn't be able to grow wings or anything else for that matter.
Science says we started in the ocean.
whatever was in the ocean realized that there was land and figured it would be more beneficial to live on land.
some years later that animal made its way to live on land and started to grow legs.
Evolution also says a giraffe used to have short necks therefore they couldn't reach the trees to get food.
Years later they grew long necks to adapt.
With that thinking a pig could say you know what I think wanna fly because it would be beneficial for me to do so.
Years later pigs can fly.
I fail to see the difference.
do you know how many usain bolts & lebron james' would be running around if this was possible?
Huh?
ExactlyDoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »
Wolves and Dogs are of the same kind. They both belong to the canidae family. So your argument is not valid. Amen.atribecalledgabi wrote: »
dogs & wolves are different species...DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »for my own sanity...the problem people are having with evolution is just about the beginning of species right?
people ain't denying the observable changes...like poaching causing elephants to not have tusks...wolves to dogs & ? like that right?
Micro evolution can be observed. It's a change (watch this now) within a species!
Macro evolution has never been observed, will never be observed, and can never be observed because it is a LIE. One species doesn't morph, evolve, change, or teleport into a completely different species because of (whatever) factors you won't to throw out there. It just does not happen.
? created everything thing after their own KIND! That is why Adam could not find someone who was "like him" when he named all the animals.
Amen.
it takes many many generations for speciation to occur. of course nobody lived that long to sit & record the beginning to end. what's your point?
the bolded sounds like ? being used to fill in blanks again...
Dam you're pretty stupid yourself
BTW where did bill gates say he believed in ? ? He just said it makes sense. Imo, he's saying that a belief in ? maintains moral order, which is what most successful societies are built on -
"Listen--science and technology rules our world and it will continue to do so.Mankind has come so far not because of religion;
Science,free thinkers,and technology has brought us this far.While some black men look for answers in religion, the white man look for solutions in science.
Religion almost always stiffles free thought and innovation.Religion controls and instills fear;religous types have monopolise morality and preach religious hatred Religion want to keep you in the dark,in your cocoon. Science on the other hand liberates the very best of human ingenuity by means of reasoning, experimentation,exploration and adventurism"
History says otherwise it was religion that put the european on the track to rule the world not science the same goes for the arab.
That's both correct and incorrect. Religion is responsible for the European Crusades, as well as the European dark ages. From a technological standpoint, religion set Europe back a good 400 years of potential advancements. Both were large-scale crimes against humanity
Is it any wonder why the Europeans immediately started stealing from/ stealing Africans around that time? Anything Christianity touches becomes tainted. The continent of Africa is the only example u should need but the same applies to the Americas as well
The decline in european civilzation and order that we call the dark ages has it's genesis in the barbarian tribes destruction of rome, the roman empire had been weakening it's military power by growing too large for centuries before that and by using too many non-romans in their armies. The people who destroyed rome used to work for rome.
religion helped the united roman empire hold onto power for a few centuries more THAN it would have had otherwise, it helped preserve the eastern empire for centuries more until it was finally defeated by islam. Meanwhile In western europe what was left of the knowledge of the romans was held onto by the church. Europeans stole from the arabs during the crusades because that is what they went there to do in the first place. Everything the european touches becomes tainted that that included christianity. -
"Listen--science and technology rules our world and it will continue to do so.Mankind has come so far not because of religion;
Science,free thinkers,and technology has brought us this far.While some black men look for answers in religion, the white man look for solutions in science.
Religion almost always stiffles free thought and innovation.Religion controls and instills fear;religous types have monopolise morality and preach religious hatred Religion want to keep you in the dark,in your cocoon. Science on the other hand liberates the very best of human ingenuity by means of reasoning, experimentation,exploration and adventurism"
History says otherwise it was religion that put the european on the track to rule the world not science the same goes for the arab.
That's both correct and incorrect. Religion is responsible for the European Crusades, as well as the European dark ages. From a technological standpoint, religion set Europe back a good 400 years of potential advancements. Both were large-scale crimes against humanity
Is it any wonder why the Europeans immediately started stealing from/ stealing Africans around that time? Anything Christianity touches becomes tainted. The continent of Africa is the only example u should need but the same applies to the Americas as well
The decline in european civilzation and order that we call the dark ages has it's genesis in the barbarian tribes destruction of rome, the roman empire had been weakening it's military power by growing too large for centuries before that and by using too many non-romans in their armies. The people who destroyed rome used to work for rome.
religion helped the united roman empire hold onto power for a few centuries more THAN it would have had otherwise, it helped preserve the eastern empire for centuries more until it was finally defeated by islam. Meanwhile In western europe what was left of the knowledge of the romans was held onto by the church. Europeans stole from the arabs during the crusades because that is what they went there to do in the first place. Everything the european touches becomes tainted that that included christianity.
Bold: You and and I both know that the spread of christianity played a major role in the weakening of rome from the inside
Underlined: The crusades were holy wars. There were massacres, rapes and cannibalistic activities committed by christian soldiers in the name of ? and they killed/stole from a lot more than just muslims -
"Listen--science and technology rules our world and it will continue to do so.Mankind has come so far not because of religion;
Science,free thinkers,and technology has brought us this far.While some black men look for answers in religion, the white man look for solutions in science.
Religion almost always stiffles free thought and innovation.Religion controls and instills fear;religous types have monopolise morality and preach religious hatred Religion want to keep you in the dark,in your cocoon. Science on the other hand liberates the very best of human ingenuity by means of reasoning, experimentation,exploration and adventurism"
History says otherwise it was religion that put the european on the track to rule the world not science the same goes for the arab.
That's both correct and incorrect. Religion is responsible for the European Crusades, as well as the European dark ages. From a technological standpoint, religion set Europe back a good 400 years of potential advancements. Both were large-scale crimes against humanity
Is it any wonder why the Europeans immediately started stealing from/ stealing Africans around that time? Anything Christianity touches becomes tainted. The continent of Africa is the only example u should need but the same applies to the Americas as well
The decline in european civilzation and order that we call the dark ages has it's genesis in the barbarian tribes destruction of rome, the roman empire had been weakening it's military power by growing too large for centuries before that and by using too many non-romans in their armies. The people who destroyed rome used to work for rome.
religion helped the united roman empire hold onto power for a few centuries more THAN it would have had otherwise, it helped preserve the eastern empire for centuries more until it was finally defeated by islam. Meanwhile In western europe what was left of the knowledge of the romans was held onto by the church. Europeans stole from the arabs during the crusades because that is what they went there to do in the first place. Everything the european touches becomes tainted that that included christianity.
Bold: You and and I both know that the spread of christianity played a major role in the weakening of rome from the inside
Underlined: The crusades were holy wars. There were massacres, rapes and cannibalistic activities committed by christian soldiers in the name of ? and they killed/stole from a lot more than just muslims
No @ the bolded you cut the statement in half. Christianity started off as nothing but another cult, by the time christianity grew large enough to be a problem for the pagans rome was already weak and had a series of bad rulers.
Rome fell because they grew too big and had to use too mercenary soldiers to fight their battles who later turned on them. Christianity was used to unite the empire making it strong not weak
