Just watch the video. It explains how reptiles evolved into birds. 
Buy on AliExpress.com
Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (16 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dinsdale
- Start date
Can you please tell me the minute where that is explained cause its 1:43 am here and i have to travel in about 2 hours.....
Buy on AliExpress.com
I can't remember. I'm on my phone, plus it's 5am here. Try the 20th minute.
Try the 20th minute.
What do you mean "even I can do that"? So you can make wing stubs grow in a bird, or perhaps yourself?
As for why it appeared in the first place, could be mutation, could be that the wrong sub was the first step towards adapting to new environments. I'm no expert in this field, so I can't give a detailed expansion.
That Walter guy looks like Del Neri. He never even tackled the question of how improbable a creator is. I would say, it's as improbable as an explosion giving rise to the universe.
Oh wait...
As for why it appeared in the first place, could be mutation, could be that the wrong sub was the first step towards adapting to new environments. I'm no expert in this field, so I can't give a detailed expansion.
That Walter guy looks like Del Neri.
He never even tackled the question of how improbable a creator is. I would say, it's as improbable as an explosion giving rise to the universe.Oh wait...
now then.....this brings us to the subject of "age determening".... Carbonisation, right?? Is it even necessary for all those set-backs of this process to be put forward? Again, we strayed off of the subject of this thread. Look at the whole video and you'll see why the whole Bing bang theory doesnt work for me. Something can not come out of nothing. PERIOD!!! Where did it all begin?? Scientists will never be able to give the answer to this question. NEVER!
Filip, I really fail to see your logic in believing in God. Just as you admitted that the chances of God being true is 50\50, why do you want to believe that it's true? Would you rather take a leap of faith that hydrogen and helium just existed (thus giving rise to the Big Bang), or would you rather believe that this God just existed and created the world in 6 days?
Filip, I really fail to see your logic in believing in God. Just as you admitted that the chances of God being true is 50\50, why do you want to believe that it's true? Would you rather take a leap of faith that hydrogen and helium just existed (thus giving rise to the Big Bang), or would you rather believe that this God just existed and created the world in 6 days?
Would you agree that scientific leap of faith is somewhat the same as religious? If so why choose the one which doesn't lead you anywhere? Where you're just a walking meatball?
I don't know if the hydrogen and helium gave rise to the big bang, weren't these atoms created after the big bang?
Would you agree that scientific leap of faith is somewhat the same as religious? If so why choose the one which doesn't lead you anywhere? Where you're just a walking meatball?
Would you agree that scientific leap of faith is somewhat the same as religious? If so why choose the one which doesn't lead you anywhere? Where you're just a walking meatball?
Cos religion does not explain the process of creation in detail. Doesn't even attempt to. It's easier to take a leap of faith that 2 elements existed in large quantities rather than an all knowing, all powerful, supreme being existed
So what, the detail in which it is explained is the thing that makes it easier to believe? How can that be written in detail in books written which were writen so many years back? After all it was books or scripts written by man, how could they now it back then in detail?
Those books are supposed to look after your inner environment, not explain how to get H from H2O.
Why is everyone fixating on this supreme mastermind, who has feelings btw
Those books are supposed to look after your inner environment, not explain how to get H from H2O.
Why is everyone fixating on this supreme mastermind, who has feelings btw
Absolutely. And this is my point. There's a BIG difference between simply making a claim, and actually explaining the details of your claim. Maybe not everything, but at least enough info that people back then could not have known. Show me one religious text that either explains or at least shows an illustration of DNA and I'll believe it.
Because these man-made scripts claim that this is the word of God and that we need to believe Him. If indeed these were God's words, he would've at least thrown in some info that humanity will discover in the future(like dinosaurs, Neanderthal men, homo-erectus, DNA, etc.) so that future generations would be more accepting of his book.
But that doesn't happen cos as you said, it was all written by men. And that's how I consider all the scriptures: words of men claiming to be words of God.
Inner environment?
Cos this supreme mastermind is usually the basis of theistic religions.
Because these man-made scripts claim that this is the word of God and that we need to believe Him. If indeed these were God's words, he would've at least thrown in some info that humanity will discover in the future(like dinosaurs, Neanderthal men, homo-erectus, DNA, etc.) so that future generations would be more accepting of his book.
But that doesn't happen cos as you said, it was all written by men. And that's how I consider all the scriptures: words of men claiming to be words of God.
Inner environment?
Why is everyone fixating on this supreme mastermind, who has feelings btw