Evolution vs. Creation

THE REAL HABESHA wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok.
I note there is no difference between my three links and your five.
You said about your sources: "and not requiring any kind of claim that there is no god." but yet 4/5 of them sources say: "disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods". Disbelief means the refusal to believe that something is true. In this case the refusal that something is true is the existence of God and gods. while denial means a statement that something is not true or does not exist (deny). That something is about the existence of God or gods. In conclusion your sources are saying that they deny the existence of any God and gods. And say, you stated that with those sources don't requiring any kind of claim that there is no god. Oxymoron.
Thanks to prove my points.

Knightmare wrote:

Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans. In other words:
NOTHING + TIME AND CHANCE = EVERYTHING
Modern science has now revealed incredible problems with this explanation.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Um, you do realize that astronomy has been split off into several new fields, right? Yeah, everyone studied astronomy until the 90s, now we study cosmology, astrophysics, and a few others I forget the names to. Within the last year several new hypothesis have come into being, several old ones have been elevated to theories and expanded on, and there are hundreds of more formulas involved. When you study science, there is no end to learning, by the time you learn one thing, there are a hundred more things to learn. That's why I ditched religion, religion you have one thing to learn and that's it, and that one thing offers no answers at all.
If you really wanted to study science, you'd never stop. I am an artificial intelligence developer, that is my passion, and I can't even keep up with the rest of technology because of how fast it has grown and subdivided into so many different things. Expand that one point to encompass all science and it would take one person over a hundred lifetimes to learn what we know today, in a few years it will be one person over a thousand lifetimes.

Judged:

2

Illustrated Man wrote:

<quoted text>
And on and on ad infinitum. So I must conclude from this, that there will never be an end to this process.
Hypothetically speaking, if God exist,(if, for the sake of argument) how intelligent would you think he would be?

Judged:

1

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Too intelligent to care if we believe in it, and too intelligent to need a gender.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Too intelligent to care if we believe in it, and too intelligent to need a gender.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
And too intelligent to create a Universe that involved suffering.

Judged:

1

KittenKoder wrote:

If there is a deity, it either does not care or we are just some random experiment to it, like an ant farm.

Judged:

1

1

1

Breitbart wrote:

The Higgs Boson particle would prove that creationism can be construed as the makeup of the universe did indeed have intelligent design built in at the time of the big bang. Darwinism is an outgrowth of that intelligent design I would imagine. You can have your cake and eat it too. Unless you are Obama. Then you can have your dog and eat it too.

Knightmare wrote:

More than 700 scientists have signed this statement!
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
For the 17-page list of scientists who have signed this statement, go to: www.DissentFromDarwin.org .

Judged:

1

KittenKoder wrote:

I am an artificial intelligence developer

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
No, Intelligent Design is the same thing as Creationism.

Judged:

1

PaidAttentionInSchool wrote:

<quoted text>
Furthermore, this was proven in court when people were trying to force "intelligent design" into textbooks. The judge was quite upset with them over it if I recall.

PaidAttentionInSchool wrote:

<quoted text>
Bravo. As one programmer to another, I have to say I'm genuinely impressed. AI, especially anything approaching a true learning capable system, is about like black magic to me. I get the rough concepts, but I just could never wrap my head around it. It's moments like that where I think I can almost glimpse why creationists have such an issue with science in general. If you don't understand how it works, it probably actually does look roughly equivalent to any random myth you pull out of history. Doesn't make them even close to right, but I do feel a twinge of sympathy for their plight.
Impressed to meet someone who's advancing the field. Keep it up.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you. I have loved AI since I was in elementary school, got ahold of some Isaac Asimov since the teacher wouldn't let me practice and learn computer programming during recess anymore. It has been a passion of mine.

Judged:

1

1

PaidAttentionInSchool wrote:

<quoted text>
With me it was Douglas Adams, which is why I think I have a less practical outlook on where to spend my time working on things.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
What impressed me with Asimov was how much actual science he would include. His whole Opus series was explaining how some of what he wrote was based on solid scientific research and hypothesis, some of which are now theories. Oddly it was his series called Robot City that inspired me to want a thinking machine. In that series he explored why thinking machines would need humans, and why they would not turn on us even if they did not have the three laws. The entire city was abandoned by humanity, the robots were left to just rot, but they didn't rot, they evolved and developed just like any life would, with one exception, they needed to serve a purpose and since they were designed to serve one purpose, that was their purpose. So they made this glorious city with the greatest luxuries and advances for humans, when one pair of humans got stranded there, it was a dream for the robotic life. Even the walls of the city were perfect for humans, you couldn't hurt yourself in the city limits no matter what you tried. LOL

Judged:

1

1

1

THE REAL HABESHA wrote:

<quoted text>
The one who invented that a negative is almost impossible to prove was a lazy ass because all over the world people prove a negative.
There are people that believe and write books on the non-existence of Jesus.
For example you and Mike are in tribunal because the latter accuse you to have broken his car because certain people claim to have seen you around that night... You say you didn't. The judge sees that Mike has eyewitnesses so he asks to you to prove you didn't. What do you think you will tell to the judge I cannot prove a negative? LOL Either you will produce eyewitnesses or an alibi or you have to go to jail.
Who affirm something either a postive or negative in the most of cases he has to produce evidence, otherwise if they don't they are on the same level.