NotWal said...

Interesting - 3 red thumbs but no arguments. <sigh>

qwerty said...

I'm going to release a line of "Satan Loves You" boards.

and for all the atheists, a line of "No one loves you" boards.

NotWal said...



I have difficulty imagining non-time. There is an argument that says time began with the big bang. I don't pretend to understand it but I think the argument stems from the notion that space/time is one entity and space has a geometry that is circular.

If there is such a thing as non-time then there is no such thing as time before the big bang. So there is no "before the big bang". Likewise, when you say "What created God?" you imply that there must have been something before God. I don't think that is necessarily so.

Common sense is deceptive. Before Galileo proved the case it was commonly believed that heavy things fell faster than light things. Common sense, informed by the experience of seeing feathers and ashes drifting slowly through the air while rocks and cannon balls plummeted past them, led to this belief. By dint of some rigorous experimentation Galileo proved that it wasn't their weight difference that accounted for their speed difference. Likewise common sense might lead you to believe that frogs croaking brings the rain, a belief held by some Amazonian Indians.

To say that the complexity of life and the cosmos is designed is an unsupportable tenet of faith unless your definition of design includes the arbitrary and accidental processes of evolution, and it doesn't seem to. It was William of Occam who pointed out that for a good theory one shouldn't draw on any more complication than the minimum necessary to make the theory work. Evolutionary theory requires nothing more than the known laws of nature. It is illogical to attribute the complexity of the natural world to a "Designer". It is fallacious to argue that natural complexity is evidence of design.

greenleader said...

twas a good experiment on the original poster who now fears reprisal from god and repents with the fear of god in his loins!

i know i would be really scared!

NotWal said...
It was William of Occam who pointed out that for a good theory one shouldn't draw on any more complication than the minimum necessary to make the theory work. Evolutionary theory requires nothing more than the known laws of nature. It is illogical to attribute the complexity of the natural world to a "Designer". It is fallacious to argue that natural complexity is evidence of design.

Greenroom said...


Common sense tells me that everything in the universe has a cause. Plants come from seeds. Birds hatch from eggs. Nothing in this world brings itself into being. If we trace everything in the universe back to its source, we find that there must be something that existed before anything else came to be. Something that gave rise to the whole chain of being.

Common sense also tells me that where there is design there must be a designer. Look at a sail. Could something so technical occur by chance? Of course not! And the universe is a cazillion times more complex than a sail! The design of the universe points to a Designer.

But then again thats my common sense not anyone elses.
Peace, love and groovy tunes

kodyn said...

you didnt ask to use that pic of me wife....

lalalamort said...
Then what created God. End of discussion.

Leech said...



But evolution is not science. There are no concrete facts, there are no repeatable experiments that can prove that the source of the variety of life on earth is due to evolution.


One offers hope, perfect justice and meaning for life. The other claims we are nothing more than animals with no purpose, worth or future.

Leech said...



God's realm is beyond human understanding.

Earthly principles of birth and death, time and space don't apply in the heavenly realms.

Earth will come to an end but heaven and hell will never end. Eternity.

God is and was and will ever be.

I'm all for science. Exploration of the world around us is fascinating and useful.

But evolution is not science. There are no concrete facts, there are no repeatable experiments that can prove that the source of the variety of life on earth is due to evolution.

It takes faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in a perfect creator.

The choice is yours.

One offers hope, perfect justice and meaning for life. The other claims we are nothing more than animals with no purpose, worth or future.

Don't you think about the future? Doesn't something within tell you that you are not worthless? Don't you strive to find purpose? If you seek you will find.

mkseven said...


Natural selection and alot of archaeology proves it. From my experience with science not many experiments are repeatable but its sound in theory.

mkseven said...


Natural selection and alot of archaeology proves it. From my experience with science not many experiments are repeatable but its sound in theory.

mkseven said...
You're second statement is the real reason everyone believes in god, simply people can not accept that we cease to exist. Think teenage suicide when there is no heaven just nothing, feeling something is better than not being. People need hope especially when life gets tough. Think of all the civilisations throughout history and it's the same common link- hundreds of gods but there has to be hope.

lalalamort said...

and there are facts for evolution.....ahh sigh, why even bother....

mkseven said...

If you believe fine just don't push your brand of BS on the rest of us.

Mark _australia said...




No it does not. There is no proof of one species turning into another. None. Natural selection does occur, like the predominantly white moths that over time turned into a predominantly black coloured species in the industrial revolution as black was favoured (white ones sat on black surfaces and got eaten). There is only variation within species and nothing proves one species can turn into another over time.

Read up on "irreducable complexity". The gist of that argument is that one mutation will not be favoured without another few mutations all occurring at the same time and to the same end.
Like let's say for example - eyes. An organism may mutate, producing an eyeball. Now that eyeball is not any good without the muscles to use it, the nerves to the brain and the processing centre in the brain. The eyeball mutation will not be favoured by natural selection as it is of no advantage. Thus it will not be passed on very long.

Not the best example, but read what some of those in the know have written on the subject.

Leech said...

One offers hope, perfect justice and meaning for life. The other claims we are nothing more than animals with no purpose, worth or future.