A few question's for atheists ?

[Youwerecreated]

I'll take Darwin and thousands of scientists over a talking snake.

The talking snake had nothing to do with the origins of life.

But there was a talking snake. Right?

Cause, forget Darwin, if I find that talking snake, I'm making me some money, bitches!

Yes, there is no way to prove a spiritual being spoke through that snake,but hey i am on record saying my belief in the things the bible say's that i can't prove ,I believe out of faith.

 

[SillyWabbit]

Why do most atheists defend Neo-darwinism when Neo-darwinism can't give a logical explanation supported by evidence as to the origins of life ?

Why do they reject the possibility of creation ?

Do you reject the possibility of the flying spaghetti monster theory?

I find it very difficult to find an argument against it. Surely if you believe that intelligent design is a possibility, wouldn't the flying spaghetti monster theory also be a possible theory?

I reject any theory that rejects design that can clearly be seen from the heavens to all life.

To reject design you reject reality.

Yeah, right because we all know reality is an entirely objective experience. Mmm, hmmm.
Where's my talking snake, dammit?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Do you reject the possibility of the flying spaghetti monster theory?

I find it very difficult to find an argument against it. Surely if you believe that intelligent design is a possibility, wouldn't the flying spaghetti monster theory also be a possible theory?

I reject any theory that rejects design that can clearly be seen from the heavens to all life.

To reject design you reject reality.

Yeah, right because we all know reality is an entirely objective experience. Mmm, hmmm.
Where's my talking snake, dammit?

I'll let you catch up so i don't have to keep repeating myself.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Why do most atheists defend Neo-darwinism when Neo-darwinism can't give a logical explanation supported by evidence as to the origins of life ?

Why do they reject the possibility of creation ?

Its fine to support darwinism, also know as evolution.

You can understand evolution is real and still believe that life was designed intelligently or created.

For example http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ationism.html?highlight=creationism+evolution

 

[SillyWabbit]

I don't question creationism. I'm here right? There ya go.
Tada!

 

[SillyWabbit]

Wrong.

Design through necessity is evidence of a creator.

Or would you tackle this question;How would a naturalist explain necessities to survive coming about by a non-intelligent , non-thinking process ?

If you want to talk design then take into account the poor design of the human body.

We are easily injured as our heart and vital organs and genital are exposed and poorly protected.
The knee joint and lumbar region of the back are extremely weak etc etc etc.

And natural selection is just as good an explanation as design. It also accounts for the poor design elements as mutation tend to be a series of very minor changes that have an effect on survival; quick fixes if you will.

Not only that, but of all the animals , we're the weakest physically.

If there were an intelligent designer up there making us in his own image, wouldn't he also made us physically superior ?

Well, I'm not defending intelligent design (as though, if it is a fact, it would need me to defend it), but, we humans are so weak that there are only like, um, billions of us, across the whole of the planet. Maybe we're not as hardcore as the rat or the cockroach, but then again, neither one of them has been to the moon. I'm just saying. I think there are plenty of dead creatures, dead by human hands, who might debate the value of being the strongest physically.
Also, let's see a gorilla make something as cool as Velveeta.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why do most atheists defend Neo-darwinism when Neo-darwinism can't give a logical explanation supported by evidence as to the origins of life ?

Why do they reject the possibility of creation ?

Its fine to support darwinism, also know as evolution.

You can understand evolution is real and still believe that life was designed intelligently or created.

For example http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ationism.html?highlight=creationism+evolution

Not if you believe whats stated in the bible you cannot sit on a fence.

The theory goes against the teaching of the bible.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Why do most atheists defend Neo-darwinism when Neo-darwinism can't give a logical explanation supported by evidence as to the origins of life ?

Why do they reject the possibility of creation ?

Its fine to support darwinism, also know as evolution.

You can understand evolution is real and still believe that life was designed intelligently or created.

For example http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ationism.html?highlight=creationism+evolution

Not if you believe whats stated in the bible you cannot sit on a fence.

The theory goes against the teaching of the bible.

So you dont think that God created life and intended it to evolve then? thats interesting.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wrong.

Design through necessity is evidence of a creator.

Or would you tackle this question;How would a naturalist explain necessities to survive coming about by a non-intelligent , non-thinking process ?

If you want to talk design then take into account the poor design of the human body.

We are easily injured as our heart and vital organs and genital are exposed and poorly protected.
The knee joint and lumbar region of the back are extremely weak etc etc etc.

And natural selection is just as good an explanation as design. It also accounts for the poor design elements as mutation tend to be a series of very minor changes that have an effect on survival; quick fixes if you will.

If design was involved with life it was a poor design

Surgeons have to saw through bone to get to the vitals.

The human body is a work of art but has suffered from over 6,000 years of poor genetics being passed from generation to generation.

Natural selection can't explain why we would have all the vital organs in place for life ?

Natural selection is what keeps the gene pool strong and helps keeping the group alive and removing the weaker genes.

If there was no natural selection we and all organisms would die off.

Natural selection is what would work against evolution because it would remove mutations that are not solidified in the gene pool.

How could a non-thinking and non-intelligent natural process think and create all the vital organs it would take for an organism to live ?

Micro-adaptations;

Fact #1 produce the same kind of plant or animal because of the DNA code barrier. Never will a cow produce a non-cow.

Micro-adaptations ;

Fact #2 result from the sorting or the loss of genetic information.

Fact # 3 scientist know of no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.

Neo-darwinism is based on three false assumptions.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.
2. Natural selection lets the mutant gene take over the population.
3. Needs long ages for this to happen millions of years ,given enough time they claim a bacteria cell overcame the law of abiogenesis and all mathematical possibility and came to life and then mutated its way to everything alive now,whew talk about faith. and they say it ended up the thing they call the ultimate mutation,you and I.

Here is a problem for you darwinist.

All observed mutations after millions of observations,mutations are caused by the sorting or loss of pre-existing genetic data. This is Gene Depletion. Gene depletion applies to Micro-adaptations and mutations,so they get weaker and weaker until they're removed by Natural Selection.

NATURAL SELECTION PREVENTS EVOLUTION FROM BEING POSSIBLE.

So you're being taught mutations + Natural Selection leads to Neo-darwinian Evolution.

But real science reveals based on millions of observations; DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural Selection is what prevents Macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is an impossibility.

You don't know much about combat do you?

The heart and vital organs and genitals of a human are NOT well protected.

In fact I can stop your heart with a single punch to the sternum. I can rupture your spleen, separate your pubis joint and incapacitate you in numerous ways with relatively little force

And you're still using the fact that we may not know every last detail of evolution as proof of a god.

It is not proof of a god it is merely proof that we have more to learn and understand about our history.

You can't seriously expect us to know every detail about all that has transpired in the billions of years this planet has existed. But that we may not know all those details is by no means proof of a god.

If your god wants me to believe in him, let him walk up to me and tell me himself.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Weaker how ? we can bring to extinction any organism alive even ourselves,who goes to look at animals in zoos gorillas and tigers or humans ? What we lack in land speed or vision or strength we make up for in reasonong skills.

The bible said all animals are in subjection to man.

Faulty reasoning.

Tell you what, pal, you go spend the night in the Savannah with nothing more than the clothes on your back and see how long you last and how superior you feel.

You know smart people will admit when they're wrong.

We have the means to control populations of organisms man is in control deal with it ,pal.

Besides a dumb person would do as you ask, i thonght man has become intelligent

What don't you understand about the term "physically weakest"

We are very physically weak compared to any other animal on this planet. Don't confuse technological advances with physical prowess.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Its fine to support darwinism, also know as evolution.

You can understand evolution is real and still believe that life was designed intelligently or created.

For example http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ationism.html?highlight=creationism+evolution

Not if you believe whats stated in the bible you cannot sit on a fence.

The theory goes against the teaching of the bible.

So you dont think that God created life and intended it to evolve then? thats interesting.

No, i believe he created us in his image,and he gave us a limited ability to adapt as he did with all his creations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you want to talk design then take into account the poor design of the human body.

We are easily injured as our heart and vital organs and genital are exposed and poorly protected.
The knee joint and lumbar region of the back are extremely weak etc etc etc.

And natural selection is just as good an explanation as design. It also accounts for the poor design elements as mutation tend to be a series of very minor changes that have an effect on survival; quick fixes if you will.

If design was involved with life it was a poor design

Surgeons have to saw through bone to get to the vitals.

The human body is a work of art but has suffered from over 6,000 years of poor genetics being passed from generation to generation.

Natural selection can't explain why we would have all the vital organs in place for life ?

Natural selection is what keeps the gene pool strong and helps keeping the group alive and removing the weaker genes.

If there was no natural selection we and all organisms would die off.

Natural selection is what would work against evolution because it would remove mutations that are not solidified in the gene pool.

How could a non-thinking and non-intelligent natural process think and create all the vital organs it would take for an organism to live ?

Micro-adaptations;

Fact #1 produce the same kind of plant or animal because of the DNA code barrier. Never will a cow produce a non-cow.

Micro-adaptations ;

Fact #2 result from the sorting or the loss of genetic information.

Fact # 3 scientist know of no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.

Neo-darwinism is based on three false assumptions.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.
2. Natural selection lets the mutant gene take over the population.
3. Needs long ages for this to happen millions of years ,given enough time they claim a bacteria cell overcame the law of abiogenesis and all mathematical possibility and came to life and then mutated its way to everything alive now,whew talk about faith. and they say it ended up the thing they call the ultimate mutation,you and I.

Here is a problem for you darwinist.

All observed mutations after millions of observations,mutations are caused by the sorting or loss of pre-existing genetic data. This is Gene Depletion. Gene depletion applies to Micro-adaptations and mutations,so they get weaker and weaker until they're removed by Natural Selection.

NATURAL SELECTION PREVENTS EVOLUTION FROM BEING POSSIBLE.

So you're being taught mutations + Natural Selection leads to Neo-darwinian Evolution.

But real science reveals based on millions of observations; DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural Selection is what prevents Macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is an impossibility.

You don't know much about combat do you?

The heart and vital organs and genitals of a human are NOT well protected.

In fact I can stop your heart with a single punch to the sternum. I can rupture your spleen, separate your pubis joint and incapacitate you in numerous ways with as little relatively little force

And you're still using the fact that we may not know every last detail of evolution as proof of a god.

It is not proof of a god it is merely proof that we have more to learn and understand about our history.

You can't seriously expect us to know every detail about all that has transpired in the billions of years this planet has existed. But that we may not know all those details is by no means proof of a god.

If your god wants me to believe in him, let him walk up to me and tell me himself.

Oh no skull don't do it,do you really think our body was created for combat ?

Do you really think more protection around the vitals would protect us from armour piercing bullets or an m-50 attack,how bout grenades ? or maybe mines ? Just lose gracefully my friend. To answer your question i spent 6 years in the army but it was at a time when carter screwed up the rescue of the hostages in Iran so no war time.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Not if you believe whats stated in the bible you cannot sit on a fence.

The theory goes against the teaching of the bible.

So you dont think that God created life and intended it to evolve then? thats interesting.

No, i believe he created us in his image,and he gave us a limited ability to adapt as he did with all his creations.

evolution is akin to adaptation.

You dont have a very open mind on this, much like the anti-creationists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Tell you what, pal, you go spend the night in the Savannah with nothing more than the clothes on your back and see how long you last and how superior you feel.

You know smart people will admit when they're wrong.

We have the means to control populations of organisms man is in control deal with it ,pal.

Besides a dumb person would do as you ask, i thonght man has become intelligent

What don't you understand about the term "physically weakest"

We are very physically weak compared to any other animal on this planet. Don't confuse technological advances with physical prowess.

So what if we are physically weaker does this mean the goalposts are moving ?

That is an arguement against evolution if we are gonna gain new and benficial information would not Natural selection made sure we maintained that physical strength and or land speed or that superior eye sight if we are a product of macro-evolution ?

Natural selection does what i said it does and it does not do as the Neo-darwinian would have you believe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So you dont think that God created life and intended it to evolve then? thats interesting.

No, i believe he created us in his image,and he gave us a limited ability to adapt as he did with all his creations.

evolution is akin to adaptation.

You dont have a very open mind on this, much like the anti-creationists.

Only micro-adaptations changes within a group not changes to a destinct new kind.

Cow will never produce a non-cow.

Dog will never produce a non-dog.

And you're right i studied the non-sense they call a theory far too long to believe that neo-darwinian evolution could have ever happened. I am very closed minded to it and i gave you the very reason why it is an impossibility.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If design was involved with life it was a poor design

Surgeons have to saw through bone to get to the vitals.

The human body is a work of art but has suffered from over 6,000 years of poor genetics being passed from generation to generation.

Natural selection can't explain why we would have all the vital organs in place for life ?

Natural selection is what keeps the gene pool strong and helps keeping the group alive and removing the weaker genes.

If there was no natural selection we and all organisms would die off.

Natural selection is what would work against evolution because it would remove mutations that are not solidified in the gene pool.

How could a non-thinking and non-intelligent natural process think and create all the vital organs it would take for an organism to live ?

Micro-adaptations;

Fact #1 produce the same kind of plant or animal because of the DNA code barrier. Never will a cow produce a non-cow.

Micro-adaptations ;

Fact #2 result from the sorting or the loss of genetic information.

Fact # 3 scientist know of no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.

Neo-darwinism is based on three false assumptions.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.
2. Natural selection lets the mutant gene take over the population.
3. Needs long ages for this to happen millions of years ,given enough time they claim a bacteria cell overcame the law of abiogenesis and all mathematical possibility and came to life and then mutated its way to everything alive now,whew talk about faith. and they say it ended up the thing they call the ultimate mutation,you and I.

Here is a problem for you darwinist.

All observed mutations after millions of observations,mutations are caused by the sorting or loss of pre-existing genetic data. This is Gene Depletion. Gene depletion applies to Micro-adaptations and mutations,so they get weaker and weaker until they're removed by Natural Selection.

NATURAL SELECTION PREVENTS EVOLUTION FROM BEING POSSIBLE.

So you're being taught mutations + Natural Selection leads to Neo-darwinian Evolution.

But real science reveals based on millions of observations; DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural Selection is what prevents Macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is an impossibility.

You don't know much about combat do you?

The heart and vital organs and genitals of a human are NOT well protected.

In fact I can stop your heart with a single punch to the sternum. I can rupture your spleen, separate your pubis joint and incapacitate you in numerous ways with as little relatively little force

And you're still using the fact that we may not know every last detail of evolution as proof of a god.

It is not proof of a god it is merely proof that we have more to learn and understand about our history.

You can't seriously expect us to know every detail about all that has transpired in the billions of years this planet has existed. But that we may not know all those details is by no means proof of a god.

If your god wants me to believe in him, let him walk up to me and tell me himself.

Oh no skull don't do it,do you really think our body was created for combat ?

I think I just said our bodies are poorly designed for combat not to mention poorly designed in general.

Do you really think more protection around the vitals would protect us from armour piercing bullets or an m-50 attack,how bout grenades ? or maybe mines ? Just lose gracefully my friend. To answer your question i spent 6 years in the army but it was at a time when carter screwed up the resue of the hostages in Iran so no war time.

There you go confusing technology with physical prowess again.

Let me make it simple for you

Guns, bullets and bombs are relatively new technologies. We evolved naked in the wilderness. Our physical evolution was a series of quick fixes which gave successive generations very small advantages over older generations. These mutations all happened without being integrated into a plan which is why we have physical weaknesses like our backs, knees etc.

If you had to enter combat naked you would indeed find your body to be extremely vulnerable to injury compared to any other animal.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You know smart people will admit when they're wrong.

We have the means to control populations of organisms man is in control deal with it ,pal.

Besides a dumb person would do as you ask, i thonght man has become intelligent

What don't you understand about the term "physically weakest"

We are very physically weak compared to any other animal on this planet. Don't confuse technological advances with physical prowess.

So what if we are physically weaker does this mean the goalposts are moving ?

That is an arguement against evolution if we are gonna gain new and benficial information would not Natural selection made sure we maintained that physical strength and or land speed or that superior eye sight if we are a product of macro-evolution ?

Natural selection does what i said it does and it does not do as the Neo-darwinian would have you believe.

What goal posts. It is a fact that we are physically weak. Our bodies are poorly designed and are injured very easily.

And the point is that we never had superior strength or eyesight. The advantages we had in an evolutionary game were that we mutated to compensate for weakness not to overcome it.

The poor design elements of the human body prove that. We as humans have the most fatal baby delivery design of all the animals on the planet. In fact before advances in medicine more woman died in child birth than any other way. You're telling me your god intended this? If your god really wanted you to go forth and multiply then why not design a woman's pelvis to accommodate child bearing with less danger?

Or is it more likely that we evolved larger craniums in respect to body size and that made child birth dangerous. The adaptation to accommodate a babies larger cranium like the fontanelles that allow the bony plates of the skull to move are imperfect at best but just good enough to give us an edge.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You don't know much about combat do you?

The heart and vital organs and genitals of a human are NOT well protected.

In fact I can stop your heart with a single punch to the sternum. I can rupture your spleen, separate your pubis joint and incapacitate you in numerous ways with as little relatively little force

And you're still using the fact that we may not know every last detail of evolution as proof of a god.

It is not proof of a god it is merely proof that we have more to learn and understand about our history.

You can't seriously expect us to know every detail about all that has transpired in the billions of years this planet has existed. But that we may not know all those details is by no means proof of a god.

If your god wants me to believe in him, let him walk up to me and tell me himself.

Oh no skull don't do it,do you really think our body was created for combat ?

I think I just said our bodies are poorly designed for combat not to mention poorly designed in general.

Do you really think more protection around the vitals would protect us from armour piercing bullets or an m-50 attack,how bout grenades ? or maybe mines ? Just lose gracefully my friend. To answer your question i spent 6 years in the army but it was at a time when carter screwed up the resue of the hostages in Iran so no war time.

There you go confusing technology with physical prowess again.

Let me make it simple for you

Guns, bullets and bombs are relatively new technologies. We evolved naked in the wilderness. Our physical evolution was a series of quick fixes which gave successive generations very small advantages over older generations. These mutations all happened without being integrated into a plan which is why we have physical weaknesses like our backs, knees etc.

If you had to enter combat naked you would indeed find your body to be extremely vulnerable to injury compared to any other animal.

Billions of years another leap of faith.

Think what you like skull,i presented why what you say is not possible but you go ahead and let them spoon feed you this junk they call science.

We were not designed to be a predator got it ? or fend off a predator unless we have weapons.

This not what God intended for mann and beast.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What don't you understand about the term "physically weakest"

We are very physically weak compared to any other animal on this planet. Don't confuse technological advances with physical prowess.

So what if we are physically weaker does this mean the goalposts are moving ?

That is an arguement against evolution if we are gonna gain new and benficial information would not Natural selection made sure we maintained that physical strength and or land speed or that superior eye sight if we are a product of macro-evolution ?

Natural selection does what i said it does and it does not do as the Neo-darwinian would have you believe.

What goal posts. It is a fact that we are physically weak. Our bodies are poorly designed and are injured very easily.

And the point is that we never had superior strength or eyesight. The advantages we had in an evolutionary game were that we mutated to compensate for weakness not to overcome it.

The poor design elements of the human body prove that. We as humans have the most fatal baby delivery design of all the animals on the planet. In fact before advances in medicine more woman died in child birth than any other way. You're telling me your god intended this? If your god really wanted you to go forth and multiply then why not design a woman's pelvis to accommodate child bearing with less danger?

Or is it more likely that we evolved larger craniums in respect to body size and that made child birth dangerous. The adaptation to accommodate a babies larger cranium like the fontanelles that allow the bony plates of the skull to move are imperfect at best but just good enough to give us an edge.

oh boy, i am not gonna beat a dead horse.

And you totally blew off my question why didn't Natural Selection make sure we maintained the superior strength,superior eyesight,and superior land speed ,if we evolved ?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

No, i believe he created us in his image,and he gave us a limited ability to adapt as he did with all his creations.

evolution is akin to adaptation.

You dont have a very open mind on this, much like the anti-creationists.

Only micro-adaptations changes within a group not changes to a destinct new kind.

Cow will never produce a non-cow.

Dog will never produce a non-dog.

And you're right i studied the non-sense they call a theory far too long to believe that neo-darwinian evolution could have ever happened. I am very closed minded to it and i gave you the very reason why it is an impossibility.

I can respect that since your being honest.

I personally dont know one way or the other. I do agree that there are GAPING large holes in the theories of many who claim all life started from a big bang and a single cell organism....doesn't mean they are wrong but it definately means they can't claim they know where everything came for with 100% certainty.