Two Minutes with Ron Paul

[Gabriel_Bell]

Apart from the creation of God there is no reasonable scientific theory for how life originally formed on earth with or without DNA.

The possibility of an eternal universe is less complicated than the possibility of an all-powerful, all knowing, omniscient deity that is nonetheless invisible, intangible. odorless and mute.

The philosophical principal of Occam's Razor states that when there are multiple explanations for a phenomenon, it is always preferable to choose the less complicated one.

Are we to believe that God just sat about doing nothing for an eternity or so, awaiting the proper moment to create a universe and then to again sit around waiting for billions of years for humans to evolve, so the very first ones would screw things up, just as he knew they would?\

And then there descendants would again screw things up so badly that it would be necessary to exterminate them with a flood.

And THEN watch them screw things up yet again so that it would b necessary to make with a teenage girl to produce a Son to save all of mankind.

The idea that perhaps there COULD have been a creator is fairly simple and perhaps possible.

But the immensely complicated and illogical Biblical explanation for the creation is just silly and entirely illogical.

 

[pjmret]

The possibility of an eternal universe is less complicated than the possibility of an all-powerful, all knowing, omniscient deity that is nonetheless invisible, intangible. odorless and mute.

The philosophical principal of Occam's Razor states that when there are multiple explanations for a phenomenon, it is always preferable to choose the less complicated one.

Are we to believe that God just sat about doing nothing for an eternity or so, awaiting the proper moment to create a universe and then to again sit around waiting for billions of years for humans to evolve, so the very first ones would screw things up, just as he knew they would?\

And then there descendants would again screw things up so badly that it would be necessary to exterminate them with a flood.

And THEN watch them screw things up yet again so that it would b necessary to make with a teenage girl to produce a Son to save all of mankind.

The idea that perhaps there COULD have been a creator is fairly simple and perhaps possible.

But the immensely complicated and illogical Biblical explanation for the creation is just silly and entirely illogical.

especially if you claim the bible is literally true as both a history and science book. As a morality story written in simplistic terms for simple people (the earth was created in 7 days), that's fine in terms of science and history. But the whole thing with humans descended from literally adam and his rib, and then all wiped out except for noah and his familly, and all that other history/science, is silly from that perspective

 

[mark francis]

no reasonable theory in the opinion of a science *****
hahahahahhaha

You have no scientifically valid clue how life on earth began, so stop pretending you do.

 

[Boris Norris]

You have no scientifically valid clue how life on earth began, so stop pretending you do.

But if science did prove it, why would you accept that? If science proves there was no god, you wouldn't accept that so to use science as justification now is hypocritical.

Science has a number of plausible explanations and I'll bet you've never studied one. It is quite normal for science to not approve everything it finds until proven. It lives on knowing what they don't know but you thing ignorance is a virtue.

The comparison is how you believe everything that Jesus did is fact when relying on a book written by illiterate barbaric warlords in a small part of the middle east and has never been updated yet saying science is basically of no value when it conflicts with your Bible.
You are a complete nutter sin. Ignorance is ignorance and nothing of value can be used from it.

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

You have no scientifically valid clue how life on earth began, so stop pretending you do.

While you insist that you do, and believe a silly ancient tale in which God makes Eve from one of Adam's ribs and there is a talking snake.

 

[pjmret]

You have no scientifically valid clue how life on earth began, so stop pretending you do.

Read the link, science *****

 

[mark francis]

But if science did prove it, why would you accept that? If science proves there was no god, you wouldn't accept that so to use science as justification now is hypocritical.

Science has a number of plausible explanations and I'll bet you've never studied one. It is quite normal for science to not approve everything it finds until proven. It lives on knowing what they don't know but you thing ignorance is a virtue.

The comparison is how you believe everything that Jesus did is fact when relying on a book written by illiterate barbaric warlords in a small part of the middle east and has never been updated yet saying science is basically of no value when it conflicts with your Bible.
You are a complete nutter sin. Ignorance is ignorance and nothing of value can be used from it.

Since science has no clue how life began on earth and science is totally ignorant of God then I think we can see what the problem is.

 

[mark francis]

Read the link, science *****

I read their speculations but I am not impressed by speculations that offer no irrefutable proof. Darwinists are like Darwin in their desperation to invent ways they think may provide alternatives to God so they can dismiss God.

 

[pjmret]

I read their speculations but I am not impressed by speculations that offer no irrefutable proof. Darwinists are like Darwin in their desperation to invent ways they think may provide alternatives to God so they can dismiss God.

No one said it was proven duh
But there are valud reasonable theories, science *****, even if you reject them duh

 

[pjmret]

I read their speculations but I am not impressed by speculations that offer no irrefutable proof. Darwinists are like Darwin in their desperation to invent ways they think may provide alternatives to God so they can dismiss God.

Let me know when you have irrefutable proff that God did it lol

 

[mark francis]

No one said it was proven duh
But there are valud reasonable theories, science *****, even if you reject them duh

Atheistic speculations about the origin of life without God are far less reasonable and scientifically acceptable than the biblical record of God's creation of life on earth.

 

[pjmret]

I read their speculations but I am not impressed by speculations that offer no irrefutable proof. Darwinists are like Darwin in their desperation to invent ways they think may provide alternatives to God so they can dismiss God.

I love the irony of a science ***** calling science as speculations but believ8ng a mythological book from thousands of years ago as being a science textbook lol

 

[pjmret]

Atheistic speculations about the origin of life without God are far less reasonable and scientifically acceptable than the biblical record of God's creation of life on earth.

Says the science ***** lol

 

[Boris Norris]

Since science has no clue how life began on earth

What qualifications do you have, other than a stupid godbotherer, to assess what science knows? That's a very poor defence of believing in a ghost.

and science is totally ignorant of God then I think we can see what the problem is.

Of course they are because it doesn't exist. They've known that since it began.

It's like saying they know nothing of unicorns. Why would they idiot. They don't exist. Do you know anything about unicorns? Of course not yet are prepared to base your life on something that has no basis of fact. Why the difference?

Your argument makes no sense when you clearly never consider anything outside the god shit. It's the epitome of self induced ignorance. You've never read any books about it for fear you might read some facts and you wont go to heaven because of some type of religious treason.

It's Clear you have very limited intelligence regarding anything outside the sphere of religion. That cannot allow rational decisions and thoughts ever to exist.

 

[Boris Norris]

I read their speculations but I am not impressed by speculations that offer no irrefutable proof. Darwinists are like Darwin in their desperation to invent ways they think may provide alternatives to God so they can dismiss God.

Evolution is a fact and the beauty of it is not one person including religion, has ever produced evidence to refute it.

There is no way of inventing "new ways" to evolution. It is 100% complete and the discoveries included in it will remain until the end of time.