I evolved from snowflakes

[psalm6819]

Nobody made me...... I evolved from snowflakes

 

[psychomom]

ahhahaha...

 

[Reborn]

Nobody made me...... I evolved from snowflakes

Is that a quote from an atheist?

 

[AlaynaJ]

That poor snowman. Someone tried to murder it with scissors!!!!

 

[pickles]

Oh, I do love anything that is snow made.
We even had a little snow this week too, just a dusting, but so perfect and lovely.

God bless
pickles

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

I wish it snowed here. So much creativity to be had with snow sculptures.

 

[p_rehbein]

Oh, I do love anything that is snow made.
We even had a little snow this week too, just a dusting, but so perfect and lovely.

God bless
pickles

.........not for nothing, but a good dose of Head 'n' Shoulders should clear that right up..........


(hehe)

 

[inthewind]

Nobody made me...... I evolved from snowflakes

The snowman/snowwoman is a human artifact. lol

The Institute for Creation Research

"The growth of ice crystals does not provide evidence to support the theory of evolution. Ice crystal growth is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics, and both are evidences for God's oversight and care for His creation. God is a God of beauty and order, and wishes for us to study His creation to learn more about Him. He asks us to consider these questions further, when He says, "Have you entered into the treasures of the snow?" (Job 38:22)."

 

[Human]

Nobody made me...... I evolved from snowflakes

The snowman is a human creation. We are the creator of the snowman. Now, you're argument is basically that 'if a snowman can't come about without a creator, then neither can anything else'. This, obviously presents some problems for a counter-argument, when the nature of such an argument is considered. If I were to say 'but we didn't create grass; grass came about by itself', you would simply answer 'God created grass!', and if I were to say 'we didn't create water; water came about by itself', you would simply say 'God created water'. Thus answering this argument by talking about any object that you yourself can readily observe is futile, not because of any factual, logical error in my argument, but because the nature of your present perspective means that any such argument on my part is met by absolute conviction in your view, regardless of the erroneous logic of such a view.

You believe so staunchly several things about the world that are difficult to overcome with logical argument. Such as:

1. That God (a metaphysical being) transcends all physical reality. This makes argument against your idea of intelligent design futile because scientifically, naturally and physically, God as a metaphysical force exerting physical power upon the natural world, cannot be readily observed, tested, verified or tangibly studied, and observation, testing, verifiability and tangible reality are the bases for logical reasoning. Thus, your counter argument will always be 'but God can do anything. You don't limit your argument to the confines of observable, testable reality thus it really doesn't matter what someone comes up with; you can say anything back, such is the nature of metaphysical belief.

2. That logical thought is untrustworthy, and you must defer from it. This means that any logic I might present, no-matter how compelling, will be met with denial, fear, aversion and a strong sense that I am in some way trying to manipulate you. It will also be met with guilt for considering it and thinking about it, as my arguments for the validity of evolution will in your view be 'against God'. In fact, the more compelling the argument I make, the more guilt and aversion you will feel to it.

3. That evolution is a theory that contradicts, or is against, God, the bible, Christianity and anything you consider to have value for your soul. This is a misconception. Science is the body of knowledge relating to, and the study of, the physical and natural world, furthered by observation and experimentation. Metaphysics aren't science's department, and it's purpose is simply to explain the world we live in with theories based upon verifiable and testable fact. No real scientist will ever say 'science disproves God', because science itself, by its very nature (being study of the natural, physical world) is not metaphysical at all.

Lastly I would like to focus on the idea that the snowman has to be created. Let's consider the nature of probability. The laws of probability would say that the more complex a thing, the less likely it is to have come about; the more factors in play, the more various outcomes there can be, thus the less likely it is that a particular outcome is realised, but these laws are often applied inside finite circumstances. Increase the playground exponentially, however, and it becomes apparent that in the infinite physical universe, all physical occurrences can and do happen. Infinite physical universe means infinite physical possibility means infinite occurrences of infinite physical things. Earth is a small place, but somewhere among the infinite universe, a snowman has come about by itself.

 

[AlaynaJ]

The snowman is a human creation. We are the creator of the snowman. Now, you're argument is basically that 'if a snowman can't come about without a creator, then neither can anything else'. This, obviously presents some problems for a counter-argument, when the nature of such an argument is considered. If I were to say 'but we didn't create grass; grass came about by itself', you would simply answer 'God created grass!', and if I were to say 'we didn't create water; water came about by itself', you would simply say 'God created water'. Thus answering this argument by talking about any object that you yourself can readily observe is futile, not because of any factual, logical error in my argument, but because the nature of your present perspective means that any such argument on my part is met by absolute conviction in your view, regardless of the erroneous logic of such a view.

You believe so staunchly several things about the world that are difficult to overcome with logical argument. Such as:

1. That God (a metaphysical being) transcends all physical reality. This makes argument against your idea of intelligent design futile because scientifically, naturally and physically, God as a metaphysical force exerting physical power upon the natural world, cannot be readily observed, tested, verified or tangibly studied, and observation, testing, verifiability and tangible reality are the bases for logical reasoning. Thus, your counter argument will always be 'but God can do anything. You don't limit your argument to the confines of observable, testable reality thus it really doesn't matter what someone comes up with; you can say anything back, such is the nature of metaphysical belief.

2. That logical thought is untrustworthy, and you must defer from it. This means that any logic I might present, no-matter how compelling, will be met with denial, fear, aversion and a strong sense that I am in some way trying to manipulate you. It will also be met with guilt for considering it and thinking about it, as my arguments for the validity of evolution will in your view be 'against God'. In fact, the more compelling the argument I make, the more guilt and aversion you will feel to it.

3. That evolution is a theory that contradicts, or is against, God, the bible, Christianity and anything you consider to have value for your soul. This is a misconception. Science is the body of knowledge relating to, and the study of, the physical and natural world, furthered by observation and experimentation. Metaphysics aren't science's department, and it's purpose is simply to explain the world we live in with theories based upon verifiable and testable fact. No real scientist will ever say 'science disproves God', because science itself, by its very nature (being study of the natural, physical world) is not metaphysical at all.

Lastly I would like to focus on the idea that the snowman has to be created. Let's consider the nature of probability. The laws of probability would say that the more complex a thing, the less likely it is to have come about; the more factors in play, the more various outcomes there can be, thus the less likely it is that a particular outcome is realised, but these laws are often applied inside finite circumstances. Increase the playground exponentially, however, and it becomes apparent that in the infinite physical universe, all physical occurrences can and do happen. Infinite physical universe means infinite physical possibility means infinite occurrences of infinite physical things. Earth is a small place, but somewhere among the infinite universe, a snowman has come about by itself.

Someone took this entire thread WAY too seriously!!!!!

 

[T_Laurich]

The snowman is a human creation. We are the creator of the snowman. Now, you're argument is basically that 'if a snowman can't come about without a creator, then neither can anything else'. This, obviously presents some problems for a counter-argument, when the nature of such an argument is considered. If I were to say 'but we didn't create grass; grass came about by itself', you would simply answer 'God created grass!', and if I were to say 'we didn't create water; water came about by itself', you would simply say 'God created water'. Thus answering this argument by talking about any object that you yourself can readily observe is futile, not because of any factual, logical error in my argument, but because the nature of your present perspective means that any such argument on my part is met by absolute conviction in your view, regardless of the erroneous logic of such a view.

You believe so staunchly several things about the world that are difficult to overcome with logical argument. Such as:

1. That God (a metaphysical being) transcends all physical reality. This makes argument against your idea of intelligent design futile because scientifically, naturally and physically, God as a metaphysical force exerting physical power upon the natural world, cannot be readily observed, tested, verified or tangibly studied, and observation, testing, verifiability and tangible reality are the bases for logical reasoning. Thus, your counter argument will always be 'but God can do anything. You don't limit your argument to the confines of observable, testable reality thus it really doesn't matter what someone comes up with; you can say anything back, such is the nature of metaphysical belief.

2. That logical thought is untrustworthy, and you must defer from it. This means that any logic I might present, no-matter how compelling, will be met with denial, fear, aversion and a strong sense that I am in some way trying to manipulate you. It will also be met with guilt for considering it and thinking about it, as my arguments for the validity of evolution will in your view be 'against God'. In fact, the more compelling the argument I make, the more guilt and aversion you will feel to it.

3. That evolution is a theory that contradicts, or is against, God, the bible, Christianity and anything you consider to have value for your soul. This is a misconception. Science is the body of knowledge relating to, and the study of, the physical and natural world, furthered by observation and experimentation. Metaphysics aren't science's department, and it's purpose is simply to explain the world we live in with theories based upon verifiable and testable fact. No real scientist will ever say 'science disproves God', because science itself, by its very nature (being study of the natural, physical world) is not metaphysical at all.

Lastly I would like to focus on the idea that the snowman has to be created. Let's consider the nature of probability. The laws of probability would say that the more complex a thing, the less likely it is to have come about; the more factors in play, the more various outcomes there can be, thus the less likely it is that a particular outcome is realised, but these laws are often applied inside finite circumstances. Increase the playground exponentially, however, and it becomes apparent that in the infinite physical universe, all physical occurrences can and do happen. Infinite physical universe means infinite physical possibility means infinite occurrences of infinite physical things. Earth is a small place, but somewhere among the infinite universe, a snowman has come about by itself.

1.) You do not understand what God is, God is not a force that cannot act upon the universe... HE CREATED I! And yes you can test God's legitimacy... First way is history, start there... I will help, research the red sea crossing...

2.)You made an assertion that evolution is valid and God is not... Prove your claim, show me ONE transitional fossil. Oh wait, there is none except artist renditions ooooooooo REMEMBER THE PILTDOWN MAN? WHERE ARTISTS MADE A COMPLETE HUMAN HYBRID MISSING-LINK OUT OF A PIG TOOTH???? AND THAT IS YOUR SCIENCE AND IT TOOK YOU 40 YEARS TO GO "UMM WAIT IT'S A PIG TOOTH"....

3.) The saying "science cannot disprove God" is the biggest lie in the book. What you are saying is "science can't disprove the Christian God but I don't like him so I am god."...
Let me give you an example of SCIENCE disproving many gods... Lets take the Greek gods... They said a man holds up the earth, well we went outside the earth and you know what???? There was no giant man... Hmmm science disproved that theory, but I will give another... The Greek gods had Apolos haul the sun around... We found out that infact the sun is not moving around the earth but VICE VERSA!!!!"
Wow I just disproved a god with science... If you cannot disprove my God with science, then that means he is real...


and 4.) People need to laugh from time to time, there are plenty of threads to post this crap on... Go there!

 

[blue_ladybug]

​boy did this fun, light-hearted thread go downhill fast.. just sayin'... :/

 

[T_Laurich]

Sorry I didn't want that ignorant fool's post cause someone who reads it and loose their faith because of his lies.

 

[blue_ladybug]

Sorry I didn't want that ignorant fool's post cause someone who reads it and loose their faith because of his lies.

​This is the miscellaneous forum..the FUN forum.. no BDF hoopla allowed within these walls..lol.. people wanna debate evolution..go to the bible argument forum..

 

[Human]

1.) You do not understand what God is, God is not a force that cannot act upon the universe... HE CREATED I! And yes you can test God's legitimacy... First way is history, start there... I will help, research the red sea crossing...

2.)You made an assertion that evolution is valid and God is not... Prove your claim, show me ONE transitional fossil. Oh wait, there is none except artist renditions ooooooooo REMEMBER THE PILTDOWN MAN? WHERE ARTISTS MADE A COMPLETE HUMAN HYBRID MISSING-LINK OUT OF A PIG TOOTH???? AND THAT IS YOUR SCIENCE AND IT TOOK YOU 40 YEARS TO GO "UMM WAIT IT'S A PIG TOOTH"....

3.) The saying "science cannot disprove God" is the biggest lie in the book. What you are saying is "science can't disprove the Christian God but I don't like him so I am god."...
Let me give you an example of SCIENCE disproving many gods... Lets take the Greek gods... They said a man holds up the earth, well we went outside the earth and you know what???? There was no giant man... Hmmm science disproved that theory, but I will give another... The Greek gods had Apolos haul the sun around... We found out that infact the sun is not moving around the earth but VICE VERSA!!!!"
Wow I just disproved a god with science... If you cannot disprove my God with science, then that means he is real...


and 4.) People need to laugh from time to time, there are plenty of threads to post this crap on... Go there!

The fact that a metaphysical being cannot be disproved or proved by physical means is a matter of simple logic. You cant prove the existence of a being who exists unseen physically, by physical means. It's impossible. That we cannot disprove God by natural science is not proof of the existence of God. To say that it is would be an argument from ignorance, a well known logical fallacy.

To use the term 'a God' when I am talking about the Christian God is also called changing the goalposts, another well known logical fallacy.

We disprove the idea of a God physically holding the world because we physically observe the planet from space, however the Christian faith teaches no such physically testable things, rather metaphor, hyperbole and spiritual mystery.

I never said evolution was valid and God was not. I said evolution is logically valid from a scientific perspective, but God's existence cannot be tested by the same means. Proving metaphysicality with physical logic is like proving ghosts with maths. Thus the OP's argument is unopposable with scientific logic regarding the natural world, due to the METAPHYSICAL component of her stance.

 

[T_Laurich]

The fact that a metaphysical being cannot be disproved or proved by physical means is a matter of simple logic. You cant prove the existence of a being who exists unseen physically, by physical means. It's impossible. That we cannot disprove God by natural science is not proof of the existence of God. To say that it is would be an argument from ignorance, a well known logical fallacy.

To use the term 'a God' when I am talking about the Christian God is also called changing the goalposts, another well known logical fallacy.

We disprove the idea of a God physically holding the world because we physically observe the planet from space, however the Christian faith teaches no such physically testable things, rather metaphor, hyperbole and spiritual mystery.

I never said evolution was valid and God was not. I said evolution is logically valid from a scientific perspective, but God's existence cannot be tested by the same means. Proving metaphysicality with physical logic is like proving ghosts with maths. Thus the OP's argument is unopposable with scientific logic regarding the natural world, due to the METAPHYSICAL component of her stance.

Wrong again. See what you are doing is saying "i cannot disprove God in this way therefore I do not have to worry about Him". I will show you a way to disprove any god, I will disprove a metaphysical being right now!

Book of Mormon says that if anyone falsely prophecies then that person has never spoken as God.
Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith...
Joseph Smith said one of his followers was to be on a mission in the spring, but that winter during a battle he got shot and died, never to go on his mission. Joseph Smith prophesied in the 1800's that unless USA repents for what they have done to the Mormons that God would smite them and make Joseph Smith President... He died and USA has never repented... Joseph Smith said that his youngest son was to become next prophet directly after him... Jospeh Smith died before the child was 5, likewise Brigham Young became prophet, and his youngest son never did.... There are many more...
Joseph Smith wrote the book of mormon claiming he was speaking for God... But according to his own words, he was not... Thus Mormonism/LDS is not true and their god is fake.


I can disprove every god on earth besides one, Yeshua. Ask of a god i will show it's fake... Metaphysical or not. your argument is null and void.

 

[Reborn]

The snowman has troubles of their own.

 

[Human]

Wrong again. See what you are doing is saying "i cannot disprove God in this way therefore I do not have to worry about Him". I will show you a way to disprove any god, I will disprove a metaphysical being right now!

Book of Mormon says that if anyone falsely prophecies then that person has never spoken as God.
Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith...
Joseph Smith said one of his followers was to be on a mission in the spring, but that winter during a battle he got shot and died, never to go on his mission. Joseph Smith prophesied in the 1800's that unless USA repents for what they have done to the Mormons that God would smite them and make Joseph Smith President... He died and USA has never repented... Joseph Smith said that his youngest son was to become next prophet directly after him... Jospeh Smith died before the child was 5, likewise Brigham Young became prophet, and his youngest son never did.... There are many more...
Joseph Smith wrote the book of mormon claiming he was speaking for God... But according to his own words, he was not... Thus Mormonism/LDS is not true and their god is fake.


I can disprove every god on earth besides one, Yeshua. Ask of a god i will show it's fake... Metaphysical or not. your argument is null and void.

Okay. Can you please disprove this 'god' by physical observation and testable means:

This god cannot be seen. This god cannot be heard. This god does not present itself in the world. This god is a spiritual god, not a physical god. This god exists outside the realm of natural reality.

Can you disprove (or prove) the existence of that god by scientific means??

 

[maxwel]

The fact that a metaphysical being cannot be disproved or proved by physical means is a matter of simple logic. You cant prove the existence of a being who exists unseen physically, by physical means. It's impossible. That we cannot disprove God by natural science is not proof of the existence of God. To say that it is would be an argument from ignorance, a well known logical fallacy.

To use the term 'a God' when I am talking about the Christian God is also called changing the goalposts, another well known logical fallacy.

We disprove the idea of a God physically holding the world because we physically observe the planet from space, however the Christian faith teaches no such physically testable things, rather metaphor, hyperbole and spiritual mystery.

I never said evolution was valid and God was not. I said evolution is logically valid from a scientific perspective, but God's existence cannot be tested by the same means. Proving metaphysicality with physical logic is like proving ghosts with maths. Thus the OP's argument is unopposable with scientific logic regarding the natural world, due to the METAPHYSICAL component of her stance.

Sorry, but it's just completely dishonest,
not to mention absurd,
to go around pretending evolution can be tested.

When is the last time you went back millions of years and created life out of muck?

Never?

That's what I thought.

 

[Human]

Sorry, but it's just completely dishonest,
not to mention absurd,
to go around pretending evolution can be tested.

When is the last time you went back millions of years and created life out of muck?

Never?

That's what I thought.

If you go to a house and see a man lying in blood, with a knife by his side and lacerations on his body, blood on the knife and punctures the same depth as the blade, would you come to the conclusion he was cut by a knife?

You weren't there, but you gather the evidence and it leads you to a conclusion. Now, the man could have been attacked, could have done it himself, could have been stabbed somewhere else, so you investigate. You know he was cut, because you can see it. You know a knife did it, because of the shape and size of the wounds.

We know evolution happened, because we observe and test the evidence. We find out exactly how by investigating further.