Similar to how if someone pulls a gun of you and demands your money or they will kill you, if you refuse, that’s suicide because you are choosing to die.
There are no other Gods just different names for Him. We don't all contradict each other, that would be impossible.
They experience the spirits, same as here and everywhere. Shinto is a religion created by man. The soul is without religion or outside of religion. Religion needs God. God doesn't need anything, certainly not religion. A Japanese spirit will manifest the same way any other spirit does and spirits don't have ethnicity or ancestry, only bodies do.
Exactly ... and some fine work in this thread, by the way These desperate believers still have nothing. The onus is on them to produce some kind of credible or compelling evidence to validate their little creator-god fantasy/delusion. And they still got ... nothing...
LOL ... you did the exact same thing (edited one of my posts) on Page 3 ... and now you're crying like a little baby. Too funny...
I don't follow any religion, so they can't possibly say the same about me. I don't need it. I don't believe the Bible or any other religious book. Why is believing in god and spirits without religion such a hard concept to grasp? The spirit aspect of reality is mutually exclusive of religion. Religion needs God - God couldn't care less if religion exists or not.
When you figure out creation let the rest of us know. Until then, you got nothing. And when did this forum turn into a court room where I have to prove anything to you? I didn't come here to prove anything to you and I neither seek nor do I require your acceptance of my evidence. You'll probably be watching the Academy Awards because you want to validate your taste in movies, likewise here in this forum. I don't need validation from you or anyone else.
Yeah you do. The qualities of God described by Christians are mutually exclusive with those described by Hinduism, Islam, etc.
If there was any evidence contradicting it, the Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy would not be established science.
My proof: The Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy and literally the entire science of physics that supports it. Your proof for your position: Unevidenced assertions.
Why would they be incapable? I see them as no more than individually improbable, and those small probabilities add up with time.
As I predicted, the, 'it's just dumb luck' argument. Random mutation WITH natural selection is what you need to debunk. Naysay and being personally incredulous about it is not much of an argument.
They don't need to happen super simultaneously. An individual who is better at jump-hunting (by having slightly more winglike arms) is better equipped than an individual who is not, even if all other aspects are equal. If many children survive in each generation, there is even room for individuals with one good mutation and one bad mutation to survive in the gene pool for long enough that their children might lose the bad mutation and just have one net good mutation. I would say there in the terms of evolution, there is no such thing as half-evolved. Each individual along the evolutionary line is biologically viable. The step between lizard and bird wasn't some freak unable to behave like either bird or lizard, the first steps would be a well functioning lizard with some of the extra benefits of being birdlike. Large changes happen bit by bit, and they happen across entire groups of individuals. Thus, a half-evolved lizard-bird would be able to take another half-evolved lizard-bird to prom. The half-evolved state would be the present state-of-things for those individuals, they wouldn't see themselves as transitional between lizard and bird, they would see themselves as a fully functioning species, which happens to have some features that we consider birdlike and some that we consider lizard-like.
Effectively yes. I have no particular allegiance to the idea that it was exactly one entity, it could have happened a couple of times, but certainly, not a huge number of first entities, or we'd see some arise today too. Well, I don't believe the individual that changed did so with the intent of eating others. There were many individuals, one mutated, and in doing so, it became able to survive better, because it was able to gain access to food/energy gathered by another individual. That would be my naïve guess at least, there may be better explanations out there, but that seems to me a plausible enough one. Also, before sexual reproduction, "species" isn't really a very well defined concept (it is pretty poorly defined even today but sexual reproduction means that groups of individuals have to evolve together, whereas the individuals of a non-sexual species can evolve in any direction). Evolution doesn't know what a species is, it doesn't know if it crosses a line which we humans would call species, it has no interest in maintaining what we humans have decided that a species is. I imagine there were individuals which gathered food, and the first hunting animal would be one that managed to gather food which had already been gathered by another individual (which is basically what hunting is, given that we store energy from our food in our bodies). I don't see why what you say would be true. A lizard whose arms grow wing-like is better at hunting/escaping than one whose arms have not done so, regardless of their bone thickness or face structure. The synergy is not needed for the mutation to be beneficial and for evolution to take place. However, once they have more winglike arms, immediately the lighter bones would benefit them, so their children are more likely to survive if their bones are also lighter. As you say, it would be very strange for an animal to develop some new bit of body before it is beneficial. That's not really how evolution is proposed to work, and indeed, that's why we don't for instance have dragons (by which I mean lizards with both wings and front legs). For a lizard to evolve dragon wings, it would need to evolve two new limbs which are useless until far down the line when they become useful wings. By comparison, the lizards that evolved into birds saw each new evolutionary step make them more efficient, better at escaping/hunting. Thus, evolution would predict that lizards could give rise to birds but not to dragons, and indeed in reality, there are birds but no dragons. Yes, randomly changing bits is not the most efficient way of changing a species, and indeed, nobody claimed that evolution was particularly efficient (well, actually, it is surprisingly efficient, but it doesn't rely on being more efficient than design would be). Taking 1000 times longer isn't really a problem, the world has been around for a very long time, certainly 1000 times, probably a million, billion or trillion times longer than design would need. Evolution is pretty slow (on the time scale of each individual) and I don't see that as a problem.
I think they're looking for the legendary Crockoduck. In fact, if a modern lizard changed into a modern bird that would disprove Evolution and common ancestry but, these people know that and choose to try to deceive anyway.
That's much too complicated....so just say "God Did It". Seriously though, great video representation for the layman. It will hurt the creationist brain however,
