Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Still Trying to Disprove G_d (UPDATED!!!)

UPDATES at the bottom.

In the past five days, there has been a marked rise in debate concerning G_d and science since Juggy said that he was going to buy some baby cells. Y'all know that I abhor talking about this crap, but when it is in mah haid, it has to be purged.

Quick alleyway, Barry stated clearly that he was going to DE-politicize this debate by placing government SMACK in the middle of the debate. I KNOW that Barry is an idiot, but most people REFUSE TO SEE WHAT THEY SEE. The ONLY way to remove politics from science is to remove all political money from science. THEREFORE, NO GOVERNMENT MONEY AT ALL FOR SCIENCE. Does Barry even know what he is saying or.....THIS?

Final thought TODAY on Natural Selection. Since the only reason that Darwinism and the asinine FAITH in Natural Selection is still hanging around is because morons must disprove G_d to enable them to live their lives the way that they do. May I offer a suggestion?

Instead of continually trying to reverse engineer what exists now, and digging the whole planet up trying to find your missing Potato-Bird, why not CREATE LIFE? Most "scientists" would begin with a cold, dark, lifeless environment and just CREATE LIFE. Take some rocks, and turn them into that single cell LIVING thing that supposedly happened. Quit working with the already acknowledged life. CREATE LIFE FROM AN INANIMATE OBJECT. That is the very basis of your theory, start at the BEGINNING, Homer.

Another quick note. I do not have FAITH in G_d, I no longer need it, because I KNOW G_d exists. Physical proof removes the need for FAITH. Darwinists, when you find that physical proof, you no longer need to "believe." Guess what? I am not 150 years old, like your Bible, On the Origin of the Species.

Now, get outta my damn yard.


I do understand that there people exist that do not "believe" in G_d, these are people that cling bitterly to things that they cannot explain and still try to disprove G_d without even stopping to SEE WHAT THEY SEE.

Can we try MATH, please?

The Earth as we know it (with life sustaining atmosphere) is 3.5 BILLION years old. This is an ESTIMATE, but let's take that as fact for the sake of argument. 3.5 BILLION is 3500 MILLION. That is 35 hundred MILLION. You cannot state that we need hundreds of millions of years to watch a lizard turn into a gazelle, it REFUTES your theory from the jump.

Natural Selection states plainly that a moon rock BECAME a MAN in 3500 million years. Inanimate object into a MAN in that length of time. Understand what you are saying.

What I am saying is for you to offer ONE SINGLE PIECE OF PROOF, take a friggin' rock and make life. If you say that life did not spring forth from rock, then where did it originate?

And if it takes hundreds of millions of years for the lizard to become the gazelle, where are the millions of species that were selected to DIE OFF in the creation of a FRIGGIN' MAN? Isn't it just FRIGGIN' weird that all of the sudden, MAN IS HERE?

Now, The Bible. In order to understand fully what we are discussing in our scientific method to DISPROVE G_d, we must DEFINE what the BIBLE IS!!!! The Bible is the EXACT history of man and his origins. You could say that your G_d Darwin STOLE his title for his book.

I have read, re-read, and re-re-read the Bible and I cannot find a single solitary mention of dinosaurs. Does this quite possibly mean they did NOT exist? Of course not. I have read, re-read, and re-re-read On the Origin of the Species and never once does it mention nuclear bombs. Do you know why? Because it was irrelevant to the TOME. (Plus the fact that no one had split the atom yet. OH! Every single thing that you use, see, touch, taste, and DRIVE, was CONCEIVED and INVENTED after Darwin won his Nobel Prize for Global Warming.)

Please, debating Darwinism and the Theory of Natural Selection is the same thing as trying to cure CANCER with BLOOD LETTING or shaking MAGIC STICKS over a fire while DANCING.

Natural Selection DEFIES all MATHEMATICS. Just so you know, MATH is kinda factual.


Another person has chimed in on Twittah and I need to respond to his comment that "btw. If evolution is false, how do you explain Vestigial parts? Like a pelvis in a whale?"

I have no clue, by the same token can you tell me why the Rocky Mountains are not playing basketball at KU?

Oh, and I forgot to post this photo from another "Embracer of Reality" from last night, still ignoring what evolution really is.

Sorry, but Natural Selection specifically states that all species "evolved" from an INanimate object. That is why y'all are crazy.

I'm still waiting for the slate of my dining room to become an elephant. Maybe we need another seventeen times longer than the Earth has been here for that to happen. I'll wait.

Please take the time to comment.


Jay said...

Just curious. What is your physical proof? You could shake the foundations of the world and convert all those nasty atheists and evolution-believers in one fell swoop.

So what is your physical proof? Just wondering.

Paul Mitchell said...

Jay, there is no need for me to convert the atheists, I am to my core an individualist, their life is their own. I have never stated ANYTHING about evolution-believers, even though they have no proof either. Faith in Darwinism or in Natural Selection is NOT belief in evolution. It is not science, either.

Just so you know, Darwinism or the belief in Natural Selection is the profoundly stupid idea that a living organism erupted from an inanimate object. Fine, you have your theory, PROVE IT.

Evolution states that LIVING organisms "evolve" from living organisms. We always hear of different species "evolving" to ADAPT to their environment, that is by definition NOT evolution but ADAPTING.

Where does that living organism originate? Evolutionists do not even possess the curiosity to even visit that question.

The problem with people that do not understand or even wish to understand science is that they are intellectually incurious people. They state plainly, "There is no God," and then try to prove their theory with reverse engineering of known physical objects instead of saying "there is no God" and then using their supposed knowledge to create life.

One is a ideology of addition, one is an ideology of subtraction.

Performing "science" is stating a postulate and then proving it correct, not concentrating on proving someone else WRONG, unless you are given something to prove wrong, which we have not been given with Darwinism. Here's the rub, if Darwinists could prove the absence of God, why are we still trying to prove Darwinism 150 years later?

Science? Darwinism could not be further from science.

Paul Mitchell said...

Oh, I said all that to keep you focused on the topic. If I gave you my proof for knowledge in the existence of God, then for the rest of your life you would try to disprove my knowledge, at which you would fail.

Skunkfeathers said...

I believe what I believe, and don't care what anyone else believes. I don't preach my beliefs, and I don't give a damn to hear anyone else preach theirs ;)

Having said that, I will say that I agree with this statement, even if I have no empirical proof on it: "there are no atheists in foxholes".

Paul Mitchell said...

Skunkfeathers, let me go on record as saying that I really don't care if someone believes in God or not.

My problem lies with pushing Darwinism and Natural Selection as science, because clearly, IT IS NOT. If anything defies all semblance of mathematics, it has to be classified as superstition, which Darwinism is.

Steve B said...

That's my biggest beef with a lot of the evolutionist stuff out there. Just try and explain evolution without anthropomorphizing critters. I've seen documentary after documentary where they talk about how bugs and amphibians "adapted" changes in their environment.

Without ever once addressing by what MECHANISM these animals "detected" the change in their environment and subsequently began to reprogram their own DNA to respond to the changes.

I also agree that if naturalist evolution were scientifically viable, then it wouldn't be so hard to find transitional species..we'd be tripping over them. You would think evolution would be a continual process, so their should be proto-humanoids living in trees, a large percentage of semi or fully sentinent humans with vestigal tails or wings or whatever.

What has keeps the various genomes so clearly distinct? Why isn't there this menagerie of various hybrids and transitional species EVERYWHERE?

Punctuated equilibrium only begs the question...punctuated by WHAT (or who)?

Paul Mitchell said...

Steve, and how about that, you didn't even have to invoke God to discredit the whole house of cards. You must have used science and math. Utterly bizarre.