who created god

the micro creates and manifests the macro! And you keep on naively believing in a mysterious GOD

Micro explains differences in a species not the creation of a new one, there are genetic barriers. There are fundamental differences between the two concepts. If marcoevolution were true, the proof should be there and yet somehow it is not. To call the theory of evolution a proven fact is a bold faced lie, its inexcusible.

I guess its not surprising though as you quite clearly are a compulsive liar.

Oh well.

that my original statement was that both theist and atheist are equaly guilty of not making sense on certain matters

"that my original statement was that both theist and atheist are equaly guilty of not making sense on certain matters"

No one always makes sense, so what is your point?

No one always makes sense, so what is your point?

That does not make sense to me - what do you mean?

Originally posted by clickclick
Micro explains differences in a species not the creation of a new one, there are genetic barriers. There are fundamental differences between the two concepts. If marcoevolution were true, the proof should be there and yet somehow it is not. To call the theory of evolution a proven fact is a bold faced lie, its inexcusible.

I guess its not surprising though as you quite clearly are a compulsive liar.

Oh well.

clickclick, do I have to spoon feed you? Out of enough microevolution which creates differences in a species, after a while, the species change so much to the extent that it becomes a whole new species. Macroevolution is evolution based on mutations. It is a proven fact and very apparent that humans evolved from prehistoric ape-like creatures. You clearly are not familiar with Darwin's theory of evolution or with evolution in general: It works like this: Take for example the Giraffe species we see today - they didn't always have long necks, in fact, paleontologists have proof of short-necked Giraffes that lived millions of years ago. So, how did they grew long necks? They didn't grew it gradually. Mutations found favorable by the environment is the answer: it's the case with all animals that sometimes freaks or mutations are born - for example a human baby with three legs, or a fish without eyes, etc. It just so happened that at a certain time a Giraffe with a long neck was born and looked quite freaky compared to the rest. But then the environment changed drastically to the extent that normal short necked Giuaffes couldn't survive anymore, for example they might have been grass eaters and suddenly the grass dissapeared. But remember that long neck Giraffe, well this one could now reach the vegetation high up in the trees, so it didn't starve to death! Consequently this long necked Giraffe survived, while all the others died out and all the future off-spring of this long neck Giraffe also had long necks. And today there's only long neck Giraffes. This is a simple example of Macro evolution. It makes a whole lot of sense and it is proven without doubt - ask ANY scientist.

You kill me finti.🐰

IDIOCY and GENIUS are both equaly amusing.

Its clear that you dont know what consitutes proof and that you are ignorant on the subject.

I know what the theory of macroevolution is, that was never in question. What I stated however is that it is clearly not a proven fact. Over the years there have been some fraudulent things that were passed off as truth but they were later debunked. Its funny though that even despite this, despite finding out that they were fraudulent, it continues to be taught as if it were legit. As a result, we have people like you who dont know any better.

I notice that you claimed man coming from apes was another proven fact but once again, that is a bold face lie. Its conjecture at best.

The theory of evolution is as follows.

Spontaneous generation (via the great creator otherwise known as random chance who seems pretty imcomptent by objective standards) + simplicity (that even then aint that simple) + random genetic mutations + natural selection begets complexity.

In regards to darwin's theory of evolution, he didnt know about the complexities that were later brought to light. Such as irreducibly complex systems, the DNA double helix and its system, etc. He even stated that it seems unfathomable that all the complexities of eye could be the result of evolution. He had no clue about the complexities of a the cell either.

There are fundamental problems with the theory of evolution. Things like, spontaneous generation and macroevolution stick out like sore thumbs, among others.

We continue to see species become extinct but not becoming new species as macroevolution suggests.

As I have previously mentioned though, the proof that should be there for macroevolution is not. The theory of evolution is far from proven fact. Continue on with that naivety if you must, I however have little time for your ignorance/lies.

IDIOCY and GENIUS are both equaly amusing.

Not in your case, its just annoying.

clickclick - I tried to explain to you in the simplest terms how evolution works on the macro scale and still you don't get it? You are truly idiotic because you mention the extinction of species which over shadows the appearance of new ones - it takes millions of years to notice the emergence of new species, but species become extinct in a matter of a few years. F*uck, you are really stupid and ignorant. Oh, and if you don't have time for my ignorance and lies then why do you keep on reacting to my posts?

Nobody asked for an explanation of macroevolution, your attempted explanation was not only unwarranted but mildly insulting. I'm the one who mentioned marcoevolution and yet somehow empowered with your ignorance, you come back trying to inform me of what it is.

When I mentioned the extinction of a species, you should have been astute enough to recognize that I mentioned a continuing trend. Not something limited to the last few years but something that we continue to see to this day. As to the emergence of new species, there is no proof that it has ever happend, not even fossil evidence. As I continue to inform you of, it is far from proven fact.

As to millions of years for a new species to be created, is that supposed to be a sufficient argument to explain why it isnt happening today? Because unless you are going to tell me how far away particular species are from "upward" evolution, you might aswell just quit.

So what is proven you ask?

We have proof that species continue to die out, we see the loss of genetic information but not upward evolution.

There is one thing that you stated that was sensible. Why do I waste my time responding to you, he who clearly knows little and lies a lot.

Ill can assure you though that I will make sure to stop. I find it peculiar that you found the need to pm me with your latest "ground breaking" post. Word of advice, get back on your meds, I am done with you.

the german civil engineer Hans Joachim Zillmer (International Scientist of the Year 2002) disproved in his book Darwin's Irrtum (Darwin's Mistake) the theory of evolution... he isnt a creationist though his researches and theses date the origin of the earth (and the universe) in the same period of time... these researches and theses which were affirmed several times (fe. by the university of oxford) disprove an evolution as darwin described...
just thought this could fit in this discussion

sth. i made a thread, some days ago... just an idea to the bigbang discussion in here some weeks ago... it didnt get any attention cause moved into another thread... 😬 ...:

Originally posted by DuronKiller
we got arguments against the existence of god in other threads, based on physical theories...
in this case i mean mainly the quarks theory...
its been said that the singularity of sub-atomically gravitation would prove the big bang and so the evolution (what would be in contradiction to the bible), and that its proven by the existence of quarks... we discussed that already and it just resulted to be not correct, cause the the singularity cant be adopted to physics and sub-atomically physics here...
now ive read a sience report in school which said either the theory of quarks or the theory of relativity has to be wrong because they cant be both right cause theyre contradicting each other...
while thinking about which theory i'd prefer i thought about what the big bang is supposed to have been...
an energy conversion from an in one point compressed mass into a young universe...... the creation of matter and anti-matter!?!
....
i think the quarks theory cant help in any way in finding out if there is a god or not...
if quarks will be proven wrong in future i dont see any effect on any religion with it.
i guess many people think, if it will be proven right, it was another step to disprove gods existence...
but if they exist i dont see any problem either.
- if god is almighty he could acutally create the world in 7 days... the word almighty includes that
thats possible because of quarks and matter and anti-matter. what would an almighty being detain to create the universe of matter and anti-matter exactly in the way the universe should work and works today? why should an almighty being make it just more complicated with putting a big bang and the evolution before its intent? you cant say its less elaborate to create it with a big bang and an evolution of everything. just imagine how many things that almighty being had to think through additionally to go sure that it all happens the way its supposed to...?
just was an idea i had, so... post your opinion 🙂

Originally posted by JimMorrison227
No one created god, and no one created us.

i know he is real because i fell his works in my life

Some people will never understand God until they've sat in a pentecostal service and seen people being healed and people speaking in other tongues while hundreds flock to the alter crying and weeping on the floor.They'll never understand until they've seen a hundred people be baptized in less than 25 minutes.They'll never understand until a person arms are waving up and down in the air only the person isnt doing it to himself.

Most people will never understand the power of God until your mom wakes up in the middle of the night because God is telling her to pray for you and you come to realize she was praying for you right when you almost got into a car wreck.Most people will never unnderstand God until your brother calls you up late one night telling you he got in car wreck and his car landed safely in between two trees where just inches to the side his car would've been smashed and his passenger would've been fataly injured.

You'll never uunderstand the power of God until you realize your former pastor had a heartattack and threw prayer nothing was wrong with him.

You'll never understand God until a pastor with doctors as his witness tells you he tripped and hit his head and was literally dead for 30 minutes but was miracously raised up.Till this day the doctors are still baffled by him returning to life.They said he compromised all laws of science and human life.

Some people will never understand God until they've sat in a pentecostal service and seen people being healed and people speaking in other tongues

That is because you are incapable of believing.

Originally posted by Beastro
Most people will never understand the power of God until your mom wakes up in the middle of the night because God is telling her to pray for you and you come to realize she was praying for you right when you almost got into a car wreck.Most people will never unnderstand God until your brother calls you up late one night telling you he got in car wreck and his car landed safely in between two trees where just inches to the side his car would've been smashed and his passenger would've been fataly injured.

i know similiar situations 🙁 i hate them

What do you mean?

never mind....