A few question's for atheists ?

[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 ?

I think "most atheists" would agree that darwinism makes more sense than creationism. Thats about the extent of our agreement as a group. Personally, I don't say evolution is the truth but I say its more likely than creation.

I reject the idea (not the possibility) of creation because there is no evidence to support it as true. I do allow for the possibility of it being true, but I would need some evidence before I accept it.

There is overwhelming evidence that shows that creationism did not happen and that life evolved over time.

Would you like to give one piece of evidence that is not based on opinion "that shows that creationism did not happen and that life evolved over time" just one piece that can't be disputed ?

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

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?

Open Letter To Kansas School Board « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

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.

We were designed by the flying spaghetti monster, that's all. How can you prove that this is not the case? Given that its as valid a theory as intelligent design shouldn't it be taught as well?

 

[rightwinger]

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 ?

A magic man created us out of clay?

No that is your first mistake God is not a man.

Joh 4:24 God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.

Did God make man?

Or did Man make god?

There is more evidence of the latter

 

[Youwerecreated]

It all boils down to believable vs. unbelievable.

Well i believe i have and can make a case to show design through creation is actually more believable. And if what you call is believable how can it be without the origins question answered . How did life begin and where did it begin ?

Who made God?

He has always been, so no one.

 

[Marie888]

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

Open Letter To Kansas School Board « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

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.

We were designed by the flying spaghetti monster, that's all. How can you prove that this is not the case? Given that its as valid a theory as intelligent design shouldn't it be taught as well?

The FSM - Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't even make sense, lol.
Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When Bobby Henderson made this all up, he still in fact used elements of this world. He couldn't do it any other way, because of course, he is not God.

The meatballs, the noodles, the ingredients of it all, well they are all products of this creation of God's.

Please give me a call me when Bobby Henderson starts creating something that is not already here in the creation as we know it Though I know I won't ever hear from you.



.



Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

Well i believe i have and can make a case to show design through creation is actually more believable. And if what you call is believable how can it be without the origins question answered . How did life begin and where did it begin ?

Who made God?

He has always been, so no one.

I agree. This is why we are not separate from God, because God created us from himself, therefore we all have God in us. God is bigger than anything we can comprehend. Our science is all we have to get a glimpse of his creation. Our mythology when taken literally misses the point that it offers to us and often moves us to the opposite point of the originally intended meaning.

There is one God. Different languages have different names for the same things. Different religions have different names for God, but it is all one. We are related to other human beings as cousins, but our cousins are also the animals, plants, even rocks. For we're all just a spark off the sun, which is God too. For we are the sun of God.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It all boils down to believable vs. unbelievable.

Well i believe i have and can make a case to show design through creation is actually more believable. And if what you call is believable how can it be without the origins question answered . How did life begin and where did it begin ?

An invisible man who lives in the sky created it all in seven days?

I will be honest with you ,i am not sure if it's day's by mans timeframe or day's by God's timeframe,because it say's this in the scriptures.

2Pe 3:8

(ASV) But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

(BBE) But, my loved ones, keep in mind this one thing, that with the Lord one day is the same as a thousand years, and a thousand years are no more than one day.

(CEV) Dear friends, don't forget that for the Lord one day is the same as a thousand years, and a thousand years is the same as one day.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

Open Letter To Kansas School Board « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

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.

We were designed by the flying spaghetti monster, that's all. How can you prove that this is not the case? Given that its as valid a theory as intelligent design shouldn't it be taught as well?

I answered your question,do you reject the evidence of design ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

A magic man created us out of clay?

No that is your first mistake God is not a man.

Joh 4:24 God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.

Did God make man?

Or did Man make god?

There is more evidence of the latter

Well sense man can't make God appear i would say God made man.

But we do know man made the theory of evolution.

 

[rightwinger]

Well i believe i have and can make a case to show design through creation is actually more believable. And if what you call is believable how can it be without the origins question answered . How did life begin and where did it begin ?

An invisible man who lives in the sky created it all in seven days?

I will be honest with you ,i am not sure if it's day's by mans timeframe or day's by God's timeframe,because it say's this in the scriptures.

2Pe 3:8

(ASV) But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

(BBE) But, my loved ones, keep in mind this one thing, that with the Lord one day is the same as a thousand years, and a thousand years are no more than one day.

(CEV) Dear friends, don't forget that for the Lord one day is the same as a thousand years, and a thousand years is the same as one day.

Why do you continue to post evidence that man made god?

 

[Youwerecreated]

An invisible man who lives in the sky created it all in seven days?

I will be honest with you ,i am not sure if it's day's by mans timeframe or day's by God's timeframe,because it say's this in the scriptures.

2Pe 3:8

(ASV) But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

(BBE) But, my loved ones, keep in mind this one thing, that with the Lord one day is the same as a thousand years, and a thousand years are no more than one day.

(CEV) Dear friends, don't forget that for the Lord one day is the same as a thousand years, and a thousand years is the same as one day.

Why do you continue to post evidence that man made god?

Why do you believe in evolution man made that theory ?

Life is to complex to reject design.

 

[pinqy]

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 ?

Because it makes no claims as to the origins of life.

Why do they reject the possibility of creation ?

Because there is no evidence and no supported theory or even hypothesis.

 

[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 ?

Because it makes no claims as to the origins of life.

Why do they reject the possibility of creation ?

Because there is no evidence and no supported theory or even hypothesis.

The real reason they make no claims because they can't come up with a logical explanation and any evidence to back the explanation.

Sure there is,i gave it to you earlier in the thread and science can't refute that evidence only support it.

 

[FA_Q2]

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 ?

Again, we have to point out the fact that evolution does not deal with origins of life. That has nothing to do with the theory. That is like rejecting Newton’s theory of gravity because it does not deal with Schrodinger’s cat. They have nothing to do with each other.

Give the real reason why evolutionists claim they don't deal with the origings of life ?

Do you remember a very famous book called "The origins of life" and who the author was ?

Do you need quotes from scientist that tried to come up with an explanation for the origins of life ?

I gave you the reason; evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. All it covers is its progression. There are several hypotheses about how life began but none of them have sufficient evidence to be considered a scientific theory yet.

The book does not matter and the scientist does not matter. The theory of evolution was what your OP was talking about and I have given you the reason that evolution does not deal with the origins of life. If you cannot accept simple facts then why are you even here?

Something else that you need to understand is that science is all right with the answer ‘I don’t know.’ Religious dogma concerns itself with absolutes, not science. There is no need to know all aspects of an event or process to acknowledge its existence as a natural phenomenon and study it. We are still not completely sure of how the sun works. That does not mean that we don’t know a great many things about the sun and have many scientific theories that explain them. Why can you not accept that science does not need an answer immediately? What is wrong with the pursuit of knowledge?

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 ?

Because it makes no claims as to the origins of life.

Why do they reject the possibility of creation ?

Because there is no evidence and no supported theory or even hypothesis.

The real reason they make no claims because they can't come up with a logical explanation and any evidence to back the explanation.

Sure there is,i gave it to you earlier in the thread and science can't refute that evidence only support it.

Correct, there currently is no logical explanation on the origins of life or we would have reproduced the events already. What is the point?

No you gave zero evidence in this thread. All you have come up with is complexity. Complexity is not a proof of anything. String theory is quite complex, to the point that extremely few people actually understand it yet the process is completely natural.

 

[tallmike]

Well i can point out things written in the scriptures 3,500 to 4,000 years ago that was not known to man until recently.

Design is evidence of creation not a natural process.

Present your evidence. Don't tell me you have it, show me.

 

[Dr Grump]

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

To reject design you reject reality.

We were designed by the flying spaghetti monster, that's all. How can you prove that this is not the case? Given that its as valid a theory as intelligent design shouldn't it be taught as well?

I answered your question,do you reject the evidence of design ?

There is no evidence of design....none whatsoever....

 

[Dr Grump]

Well i believe i have and can make a case to show design through creation is actually more believable. And if what you call is believable how can it be without the origins question answered . How did life begin and where did it begin ?

Who made God?

He has always been, so no one.

Everything came from something....things just don't appear out of a vacuum or ether....

 

[rdean]

And it boils down to minding your own business and not worrying about what others do or don’t believe.

It's very hard to "mind one's own business" when religious types want to dilute science with myth and magic. They have places to worship..and should do their worshipping there.

Excellent, and gays have bedrooms to butt **** in , they should keep their theory of gayativity there. Glad we agree.

You are so nasty. Stupid and nasty. Terrible and tragic combination.

 

[rdean]

Again, we have to point out the fact that evolution does not deal with origins of life. That has nothing to do with the theory. That is like rejecting Newton’s theory of gravity because it does not deal with Schrodinger’s cat. They have nothing to do with each other.

Give the real reason why evolutionists claim they don't deal with the origings of life ?

Do you remember a very famous book called "The origins of life" and who the author was ?

Do you need quotes from scientist that tried to come up with an explanation for the origins of life ?

I gave you the reason; evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. All it covers is its progression. There are several hypotheses about how life began but none of them have sufficient evidence to be considered a scientific theory yet.

The book does not matter and the scientist does not matter. The theory of evolution was what your OP was talking about and I have given you the reason that evolution does not deal with the origins of life. If you cannot accept simple facts then why are you even here?

Something else that you need to understand is that science is all right with the answer ‘I don’t know.’ Religious dogma concerns itself with absolutes, not science. There is no need to know all aspects of an event or process to acknowledge its existence as a natural phenomenon and study it. We are still not completely sure of how the sun works. That does not mean that we don’t know a great many things about the sun and have many scientific theories that explain them. Why can you not accept that science does not need an answer immediately? What is wrong with the pursuit of knowledge?

Because it makes no claims as to the origins of life.

Because there is no evidence and no supported theory or even hypothesis.

The real reason they make no claims because they can't come up with a logical explanation and any evidence to back the explanation.

Sure there is,i gave it to you earlier in the thread and science can't refute that evidence only support it.

Correct, there currently is no logical explanation on the origins of life or we would have reproduced the events already. What is the point?

No you gave zero evidence in this thread. All you have come up with is complexity. Complexity is not a proof of anything. String theory is quite complex, to the point that extremely few people actually understand it yet the process is completely natural.

So you are saying you totally believe in evolution, right?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Again, we have to point out the fact that evolution does not deal with origins of life. That has nothing to do with the theory. That is like rejecting Newton’s theory of gravity because it does not deal with Schrodinger’s cat. They have nothing to do with each other.

Give the real reason why evolutionists claim they don't deal with the origings of life ?

Do you remember a very famous book called "The origins of life" and who the author was ?

Do you need quotes from scientist that tried to come up with an explanation for the origins of life ?

I gave you the reason; evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. All it covers is its progression. There are several hypotheses about how life began but none of them have sufficient evidence to be considered a scientific theory yet.

The book does not matter and the scientist does not matter. The theory of evolution was what your OP was talking about and I have given you the reason that evolution does not deal with the origins of life. If you cannot accept simple facts then why are you even here?

Something else that you need to understand is that science is all right with the answer ‘I don’t know.’ Religious dogma concerns itself with absolutes, not science. There is no need to know all aspects of an event or process to acknowledge its existence as a natural phenomenon and study it. We are still not completely sure of how the sun works. That does not mean that we don’t know a great many things about the sun and have many scientific theories that explain them. Why can you not accept that science does not need an answer immediately? What is wrong with the pursuit of knowledge?

Because it makes no claims as to the origins of life.

Because there is no evidence and no supported theory or even hypothesis.

The real reason they make no claims because they can't come up with a logical explanation and any evidence to back the explanation.

Sure there is,i gave it to you earlier in the thread and science can't refute that evidence only support it.

Correct, there currently is no logical explanation on the origins of life or we would have reproduced the events already. What is the point?

No you gave zero evidence in this thread. All you have come up with is complexity. Complexity is not a proof of anything. String theory is quite complex, to the point that extremely few people actually understand it yet the process is completely natural.

God said in the bible he created living organisms according to their kind ,each and every kind, and time and time again living organisms keep reproducing after their kind. Why is it that time and time again living organisms reproduce offspring after their own kind ?

You know why, genetics from parents and parents of their parents keep producing genes after their own kind proving the words from the bible accurate. Since science can't produce
Macro-evolution i would say there is more evidence that the bible is more accurate about life over modern day science wild unfounded theory.

We all know changes can happen within a group but not changes that would create a completely new group. and you're are not being honest when you suggest science is not concerned with facts or solid evidence to prove their explanations.

Anyone who has a clue concerning Genetics knows that the DNA Code Barrier + Gene Depletion + Natural Selection = Zero Neo-Darwinism.

The DNA Code Barrier is a principle which demonstrates that one kind, such as a dog,only has genetic information to produce dogs. Though there can be a wide range of variation in their gene pool, dogs only have the DNA to produce dogs. Gene Depletion is the scientific principle that mutations are caused by the sorting or loss of the parents genetic data. Finally,Natural Selection removes the genetically weaker mutant, preserving the gene pool and PREVENTING Neo-Darwinian change. Real science proves that dogs can only produce dogs. In other words, kinds can only bring forth after their kind, just as we are told ten times in the book of Genesis!

So Gene Depletion and Natural Selection make Macro-evolution an impossibility.