All Forums > SimLeague Football > NFL > Makes me sick...
2/7/2013 7:13 PM
There must be a creator.
2/7/2013 7:16 PM
Posted by caesari on 2/7/2013 7:13:00 PM (view original):
There must be a creator.
There MIGHT be a creator.  I'm amazed when people use infinitives when indefinites are more fitting.
2/7/2013 7:42 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 2/7/2013 7:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/7/2013 6:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 2/7/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):
The absence of ANY evidence of a god is reason enough to NOT believe.

It's a double or triple negative, but it has internal consistency.
Depends on your definition of "evidence". I look around me at nature, etc. and I would say there is plenty of evidence of a devine creator. I think it's foolish to believe all this happens by accident. And my position is no more or less valid than yours.

Nature isn't evidence of a DIVINE (if you don't know a ******* word, don't try to use it) creator.  It simply is.  To postulate a divine creator based on faith or belief is fine, but don't pass it off as evidence.

And don't try to characterize your position as "valid".  It's FAITH (as MIke says) and is not based on evidence.  You can't have it both ways.

Uh oh...who invited the grammar police?
2/7/2013 7:44 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 2/7/2013 7:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by caesari on 2/7/2013 7:13:00 PM (view original):
There must be a creator.
There MIGHT be a creator.  I'm amazed when people use infinitives when indefinites are more fitting.
Sorry boss...where exactly did I use an infinitive? I said TO ME, nature is evidence of a God. Did I say "I GUARANTEE YOU THERE IS FOR SURE A GOD!!!"? Ya, I didn't think so.

And as has been stated many times in this thread, your stance is based on faith too. Unless you've conducted the tests and/or understand all the science involved, you're putting your faith in scientists. You're trusting in the tests they've done and the results they're telling you.

I know my position is based on faith. I haven't denied that. But it's funny that you all think yours isn't.
2/7/2013 7:45 PM

Goddammit.   cesari is gonna make me go dark side.

No one has ever cleaned out their garage, not a speck of dust, and left it for a billion years.   Maybe a Mercedes would form.   Can you prove it wouldn't?

2/7/2013 7:48 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/7/2013 7:45:00 PM (view original):

Goddammit.   cesari is gonna make me go dark side.

No one has ever cleaned out their garage, not a speck of dust, and left it for a billion years.   Maybe a Mercedes would form.   Can you prove it wouldn't?

In principle, it's not a bad example. Most evolutionists would say "You're dumb as ****! Dust can't turn into a Mercedes!!".  And yet they have no problem believing that millions of different multi-celled, complex beings developed from ameobas.
2/7/2013 7:50 PM
Not really.    A Mercedes is not a living creature.  
2/7/2013 7:51 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 2/7/2013 7:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by caesari on 2/7/2013 7:13:00 PM (view original):
There must be a creator.
There MIGHT be a creator.  I'm amazed when people use infinitives when indefinites are more fitting.
You must have misinterpreted what I meant. You said, "THERE MUST BE A GOD," and so I replaced that with "creator," and I too was referring to my personal beliefs.

As for Mike, it is a preposterous statement to say that would in fact form. I guess technically I could not prove it. So I won't argue that point. 
2/7/2013 7:51 PM
Ameobas are living creatures, and I still think it's a dumb as **** theory.
2/7/2013 7:54 PM

Do you think there are any examples of animals adapting to different conditions?

2/7/2013 7:57 PM

I'll try it another way.   Do you think people are larger now than they were in 1900?

2/7/2013 7:58 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/7/2013 7:54:00 PM (view original):

Do you think there are any examples of animals adapting to different conditions?

That's actually a question I have for evolutionists. Theoretically, evolution is a response to changing environmental conditions, etc. - species have to adapt or die. And if we look back, a lot of species that have allegedly evolved, their predecessors went extinct because they didn't evolve.

So if we came from monkeys, why are monkeys still here? What necessitated the change for only half the monkeys to evolve into humans while the other half stayed put? And why are monkeys still here, yet the links in between (like neanderthals) are gone?

Now, is that alone evidence that evolution is wrong? No. But if people think evolution doesn't have huge holes in it, there fools.
2/7/2013 7:59 PM
I think beings evolve over time (different skin colors, facial features, etc. in humans) to meet conditions - but evolving into an entirely different species? I don't buy it.
2/7/2013 8:33 PM
Look up Dmitri Belyaev and his fox experiments.  You might just learn something about evolution.
2/7/2013 8:38 PM
Posted by moranis on 2/7/2013 8:33:00 PM (view original):
Look up Dmitri Belyaev and his fox experiments.  You might just learn something about evolution.
He domesticated some foxes...my mind is blown.

Exactly what does that have to do with evolving from one species/type of organism into something else?
of 60
All Forums > SimLeague Football > NFL > Makes me sick...

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.