How well off can you be if you had to ask for marital advice on a sports forum? And I seriously doubt that. But like I said before, I don't define success by the amount of money a person makes.
And I'm still smarter than you.
I'd also wager I'm better off than you in real life.
Lol re .
How well off can you be if you had to ask for marital advice on a sports forum? And I seriously doubt that. But like I said before, I don't define success by the amount of money a person makes.
Well though out answer by an intelligent man.
if the bottom line answer you are looking for is "we don't know" then why do you pretend that you know? while the origin of the very first life-form on earth is still cloudy, that has nothing to do with the evolution of life on this planet, which is well do ented in the fossil and genetic record. even if you want to believe that a deity first implemented life on earth, that doesn't rule out the well do ented evolution of life... say "god" whether it be your judeo-christian god or some other vague "god" planted the seeds of life, the way life has branched and spread over time through natural selection isn't really affected or altered
yeah bro i watched the matrix too
as for the hippee "i think god IS the universe thing" i think the bottom line question is if you think god has consciousness, is self aware, etc
Your wife cheated on you and you had no one to talk to. Yeah, you're a real winner, Blake.
How can you explain life when you don't even know how it got here?
easily. we can map out origins, changes, and developments in language without being able to identify the origin of language.
whether the very first single celled organisms developed organically on earth, were delivered via a meteorite, or brought here by a god, we can still see how life on earth has changed over billions of years via fossil/genetic records.
it's silly to say that humans were here one day after all the animals. we never knew dinosaurs existed until the 19th century. if we were around at the origin of life, i dont think we would have just not noticed giant reptilian creatures
So then why do most scientist deny God when they really don't know?
I define intelligence by someone's ability to see evidence, understand how it is evidence and use their mind to make a logical conclusion.
My conclusion about you based on the evidence here is that you're re ed.
there is no evidence to support the existence of a god yet. i dont think a scientist will ever outright say "god doesn't exist" much in the same way nobody can ever definitively say "the flying spaghetti mosnter doesn't exist." its a logical fallacy to try to prove a negative.
Link to this claim.
I'll wait, re .
What evidence? A couple of fossils of an ape that were then sketched out to have human and ape like features for no reason at all.
Almost every in here is an Atheists.
Lol Bible magic.
Lol re .
^They got all of that from a tooth.![]()
Almost every hypocritical prick in here believes in God.
keep up God's work by trying to go after my personal life.
Lol re .
Just 1 tooth provided all of that information. A bipedal ape/man from a tooth. Rumor has it his name was Blake but scientists aren't sure.
atheists don't believe in god. that is actually different than outright claiming that god doesn't exist
Lol resorting to making up stuff about me.
lol re ed Christian.
LOL, butthurt. Calls me a and cries because I call him out for being a .
a) that was an artist's representation, not something deemed to be a scientific fact. this was the artist, not a scientist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%A9d%C3%A9e_Forestier
In 1922 his "Nebraska Man" drawings appeared in The Illustrated London News. These reconstructions, in collaboration with scientist Grafton ****** Smith, were of a possible ape-like ancestor of present-day man, based on a fossil tooth found in Nebraska. However this drawing owed more to artistic imagination than scientific fact, and the find itself was scientifically insignificant.[5]
b) Retraction[edit]
From its initial description, Hesperopithecus was regarded as an inconclusive find by a large portion on the scientific community. Examinations of the specimen continued, and the original describers continued to draw comparisons between Hesperopithecus and apes. Further field work on the site in the summers of 1925 and 1926 uncovered other parts of the skeleton. These discoveries revealed that the tooth was incorrectly identified. According to these discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor an ape, but to a fossil of an extinct species of peccary called Prosthennops serus. The misidentification was attributed to the fact that the original specimen was severely weathered. The earlier identification as an ape was retracted in the journal Science in 1927.[3]
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)