A Problem with God

[TEKLOFTY]

I'm just stating that there is actually undeniable evidence that there must be a creator. I acknowlage that there is also undeniable evidence that there is no creator.

I'm an atheist anyways, Just putting forwards both sides.

Gaps in evolutionary knowledge are hardly 'undeniable'.

 

[jim]

In which case the same goes for a bettle, i can't remember its species. It basicly has a flamethrower for a ar$e. But it's made to withstand that heat, so to evolve it needs the extreme heat from its ar$e. But in doing so it would kills itself. So how did it evolve to have the protective shell?
Again someone must have made it.

I believe it's the bombardier beetle

 

[Buddha 3]

So in order for the girrafe to have "evolved" this sponge it must have blacked out. But by blacking out it gets eaten by its preditor, therefore it is impossible for the giraffe to have "evolved" the sponge substance.

Something must have put it there. Some form of creator.

Please tell me you're joking...

This logic is totally flawed. In order for the sponge to evolve, the giraffe must have blacked out.... Well no. It's the ones that didn't black out that survived. The ones that had an ever so slight physical difference compared to the ones that got eaten, preventing it from blacking out most of the time or at least long enough for it to knock some female up. Next generation is build on survivers amongst whom the "different bit" is ever so slightly larger, and so on ad nauseum.

If you want to back up religion with science or logic, please pick something that holds water, or at least makes a bit of sense...

 

[Buddha 3]

I believe it's the bombardier beetle

No, it's Andy Piper.

 

[TEKLOFTY]

No, it's Andy Piper.

Ho ho ho.

 

[Robbo]

Oh, atheism has quite a lot of evidence backing it up i think you will find - besides, religion is all about belief, would you call someone who blindly believes in a religion as irresponsible as someone who does not?

Tek, you really need to read what I write mate; I have already differentiated between a religious god and a creator, they are entirely different animals and it is the latter that I referred to when describing the denial of such a creator as irresponsible.

 

[TEKLOFTY]

Tek, you really need to read what I write mate; I have already differentiated between a religious god and a creator, they are entirely different animals and it is the latter that I referred to when describing the denial of such a creator as irresponsible.

Regardless, using the term 'irresponsible' still makes very little sense.

 

[Robbo]

Regardless, using the term 'irresponsible' still makes very little sense.

Regardless?????????

No it's not regardless at all, you basically hadn't read what I wrote, you then constructed an 'irresponsible' point masquerading as some sort of profound question and then when you have your mistake pointed out, you then default to a semantic debate which has even less merit than your original point .....

OK, I think this is where I take my leave ...... Tek, try to learn something from this mate, if you feel the need to comment in a lot of threads, which of course is your right, then don't come to the gun fight with a stick of celery ...... coz you only end up looking a tad silly and maybe even a little irresponsible.

 

[TEKLOFTY]

Regardless?????????

No it's not regardless at all, you basically hadn't read what I wrote, you then constructed an 'irresponsible' point masquerading as some sort of profound question and then when you have your mistake pointed out, you then default to a semantic debate which has even less merit than your original point .....

OK, I think this is where I take my leave ...... Tek, try to learn something from this mate, if you feel the need to comment in a lot of threads, which of course is your right, then don't come to the gun fight with a stick of celery ...... coz you only end up looking a tad silly and maybe even a little irresponsible.

Your reference me as misunderstanding what you wrote and yet you can’t even realise what it is I am getting at? NOT believing in a creator may be stupid, it may be silly (from your, or anyone else’s point of view for that matter) but it is hardly irresponsible; especially when there is ample evidence on both sides of the argument for there being a creator and vice versa – whether he is benevolent/religious or whatever.

Given this amount of evidence, what got to me was the fact that you had the nerve to call someone ‘irresponsible’ for not believing in a creator, that was my point.

 

[Robbo]

Your reference me as misunderstanding what you wrote and yet you can’t even realise what it is I am getting at? NOT believing in a creator may be stupid, it may be silly (from your, or anyone else’s point of view for that matter) but it is hardly irresponsible; especially when there is ample evidence on both sides of the argument for there being a creator and vice versa – whether he is benevolent/religious or whatever.

Given this amount of evidence, what got to me was the fact that you had the nerve to call someone ‘irresponsible’ for not believing in a creator, that was my point.

Tek, you seem to possess the 'will' to participate in these debates, which of course is commendable and very welcome, but you don't yet possess the armoury.
This is not a criticism, it is merely an observation.
I went back through a few threads and looked at the way you interact with whatever subject is being discussed, and as I said, you undoubtedly have the passion, the inclination and hunger but as of yet, not in full possession of the ability to stay on track or think logically.

Sometimes in life, you just have to take a back seat and not pursue points for the sake of it.... a few years ago, there was a guy on here with a similar 'passion' for debate to yours ...his name was brockdorrf and eventually, he hung himself, metaphorically of course.
As a well-meaning piece of advice, please try to locate that winch that is positioned somewhere near your head, and at least, embrace the notion of winding that neck back in a tad.

Peace