Darwin vs DNA

[Youwerecreated]

What "alternative theory to evolution" are you talking about? The one you propose that is founded upon magic?

Wrong. The nonsense that is being used to brainwash young people is the nonsense retards like you fabricate from your dishonest quote-mining efforts, obvious distortions of science, intentional application of logical fallacy, and shameless disinformation. No one is impressed that you can demonstrate that the nonsense you have concocted is nonsense. And your retarded victory dances are all just laughable.

Yet toddlers are susceptible to your anti-rational fairy tales, and the consequence is that they become intellectually-defective, and morally-incompetent retards like you.

Wrong the schools have adopted this Ideology using the same methods that satan used on eve.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said to the woman, Is it so that God has said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Gen 3:2 And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die,
Gen 3:5 for God knows that in the day you eat of it, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

Satan lied and mislead them both just as the schools are being used by satan as tools to lead people astray. The bible has predicted this would happen. It was predicted almost 2,000 years ago.

2Ti 4:1 Therefore I solemnly witness before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is going to judge the living and the dead according to His appearance and His kingdom,
2Ti 4:2 preach the Word, be instant in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.
2Ti 4:3 For a time will be when they will not endure sound doctrine, but they will heap up teachers to themselves according to their own lusts, tickling the ear.
2Ti 4:4 And they will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned to myths.

Just like I said, fairy tales.

is this the best you can come up with ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

No faith is required at all for atheism. None.

a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun:
The theory or belief that God does not exist.

be·lief/biˈlēf/
Noun:
1.An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2.Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Faith/fāTH/
Noun:
1.Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Thanks. Your point here being?

Do you not knowing all the facts of the evidence of the theory of evolution don't you exhibit faith in the text books and teachers ?

Non-sequitur much?

Does your shameless application of dishonest quote-mining, obvious distortions of science, intentional application of logical fallacy, and shameless disinformation make you intellectually and morally defective?

On your part.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

So if you do not believe in God, and you can't prove it, then you have faith, a belief system, even if it is as sophomoric as "I don't believe."

OK, we all get that.

Here's an analogy. Does not believing in bigfoot take faith? No. The person who is making that claim that bigfoot does exist has to provide evidence. They have the burden of proof. Until that person does provide evidence, I am justified in suspending the belief that bigfoot is real. In the meanwhile, I am not employing faith while suspending belief, or disbelieving. That's a direct analogy to our discussion.

Christians are claiming an addition to the universe, namely that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being exists, is responsible for creation, both of the universe and of all life, and is interacting with our universe on a constant basis (answering prayers). So far, none of these assertions can be demonstrated at all. You have no evidence for any of this, yet accept this as true. In order to do this you need faith, which, by definition, is believing something without evidence.

Disbelieving this fairytale can not be called faith. It is rational skepticism.

By the way, what exactly would i have faith in, since you claim this? The non-existence of god? That doesn't make logical sense.

Disbelief isn't always simply the lack of belief. As an agnostic, I don't believe that there is a God, though I accept the possibility. That's what a complete lack of faith looks like. Believing that there is no God requires faith. Regardless of whether it's a positive or negative assertion, it is an assertion.

And yes, faith in the non-existence of God actually does make sense. Since you can't prove that intelligent design isn't responsible for the universe, you must take it on faith that there is definitely no omni-being-creator type.

Atheism is a religion, too. Don't ever let anyone tell you differently.

In fact, if you want to get back to basic, Socratic philosophical reasoning, believing that anything you observe is real requires some amount of faith. For all you know, the only thing that truly exists is your consciousness, and this entire existence is a dream fabricated to pass the boredom of supreme lonliness.

 

[LOki]

Wrong the schools have adopted this Ideology using the same methods that satan used on eve.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said to the woman, Is it so that God has said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Gen 3:2 And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die,
Gen 3:5 for God knows that in the day you eat of it, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

Satan lied and mislead them both just as the schools are being used by satan as tools to lead people astray. The bible has predicted this would happen. It was predicted almost 2,000 years ago.

2Ti 4:1 Therefore I solemnly witness before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is going to judge the living and the dead according to His appearance and His kingdom,
2Ti 4:2 preach the Word, be instant in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.
2Ti 4:3 For a time will be when they will not endure sound doctrine, but they will heap up teachers to themselves according to their own lusts, tickling the ear.
2Ti 4:4 And they will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned to myths.

Just like I said, fairy tales.

is this the best you can come up with ?

It's beating the living shit out of your fairy tale!

 

[Hollie]

If we had been around as long as evolutionist claim we would all be extinct because of the inheritance of genetic disorders. 6,000 genetic disorders and counting.

Can we take this to mean that Harun Yahya is taking the lead to shatter the global conspiracy that is science, biology, geology, etc.?

Why not,this has been your claim since you showed up in these forums.

Are you still still bitter from being banned from their site ?

I was never banned from the site.

It was you who cut and pasted from Harun Yahya. I provided a rebuttal to the nonsense you cut and pasted.

Are you bitter about that?

The only entities that are proposing a 6000 year old earth are the fundie religious entities you cut and paste from. The ICR, for example, has an explicit section on their "About" webpage that explicitly lays out their religious perspective and agenda.

Do you recall that I previously linked you to their pre-qualifying agreement that must be signed by those who shill for them? Do you recall that the pre-qualifying agreement stipulates that any findings, publications or data produced by these shilling for the ICR must be in accordance with ICR objectives and cannot contradict their religious tenets?

You do recall that I addressed such dishonesty in excruciating detail, right?

 

[Youwerecreated]

>>>>Jake said:
See, you pretend as if you know the be all and end all of scripture.

You don't because you are not His Man of God, His Prophet.

However, I know Him, I call Him Lord, and He calls me by my first name.
If you have that, Ram, you are OK. Don't sweat the small stuff, don't be a pharisee


Okay Jake, I've given you ample time to tell me what the voice of God sounds like and what did I get for my courtesy? You side-stepped, you pretended the question was never asked. . .in short you didn't have and answer so you dissembled.
You could have been a gent and admitted, 'well, okay I got a little carried away there' and that would have been a perfectly acceptable thing to admit, we are, after all, only human. OR you could have answered my question and told me what His voice sounded like. OR you could have said what you really experienced was feeling His presence. I could accept that because I know how that feels. And that would have been a lively discussion.

But, no, you didn't do that. YOU'RE go to position, you're default INSTINCTUAL answer was to slip the question. So you lied and you cheated. And that doesn't make you one of God's favorite son's, Jake. That doesn't make you a holy warrior, all that does is make you just one more Snake in the Garden.

I am sure this is not his only voice.

Rev 1:10 I came to be in the Spirit in the Lord's day and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
Rev 1:11 saying, I am the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. Also, What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.
Rev 1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me.
Rev 1:13 And having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands. And in the midst of the seven lampstands I saw One like the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the feet, and tied around the breast with a golden band.
Rev 1:14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow. And His eyes were like a flame of fire.
Rev 1:15 And His feet were like burnished brass having been fired in a furnace. And His voice was like the sound of many waters.


Sounds like a very intimidating voice when he is in his full glory.

 

[LOki]

So if you do not believe in God, and you can't prove it, then you have faith, a belief system, even if it is as sophomoric as "I don't believe."

OK, we all get that.

Here's an analogy. Does not believing in bigfoot take faith? No. The person who is making that claim that bigfoot does exist has to provide evidence. They have the burden of proof. Until that person does provide evidence, I am justified in suspending the belief that bigfoot is real. In the meanwhile, I am not employing faith while suspending belief, or disbelieving. That's a direct analogy to our discussion.

Christians are claiming an addition to the universe, namely that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being exists, is responsible for creation, both of the universe and of all life, and is interacting with our universe on a constant basis (answering prayers). So far, none of these assertions can be demonstrated at all. You have no evidence for any of this, yet accept this as true. In order to do this you need faith, which, by definition, is believing something without evidence.

Disbelieving this fairytale can not be called faith. It is rational skepticism.

By the way, what exactly would i have faith in, since you claim this? The non-existence of god? That doesn't make logical sense.

Disbelief isn't always simply the lack of belief. As an agnostic, I don't believe that there is a God, though I accept the possibility. That's what a complete lack of faith looks like. Believing that there is no God requires faith. Regardless of whether it's a positive or negative assertion, it is an assertion.

And yes, faith in the non-existence of God actually does make sense. Since you can't prove that intelligent design isn't responsible for the universe, you must take it on faith that there is definitely no omni-being-creator type.

Atheism is a religion, too. Don't ever let anyone tell you differently.

In fact, if you want to get back to basic, Socratic philosophical reasoning, believing that anything you observe is real requires some amount of faith. For all you know, the only thing that truly exists is your consciousness, and this entire existence is a dream fabricated to pass the boredom of supreme lonliness.

Wow. You're just the LOLz.

Atheism is not a religion, and requires no faith what-so-ever.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just like I said, fairy tales.

is this the best you can come up with ?

It's beating the living shit out of your fairy tale!

Another dreamer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here's an analogy. Does not believing in bigfoot take faith? No. The person who is making that claim that bigfoot does exist has to provide evidence. They have the burden of proof. Until that person does provide evidence, I am justified in suspending the belief that bigfoot is real. In the meanwhile, I am not employing faith while suspending belief, or disbelieving. That's a direct analogy to our discussion.

Christians are claiming an addition to the universe, namely that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being exists, is responsible for creation, both of the universe and of all life, and is interacting with our universe on a constant basis (answering prayers). So far, none of these assertions can be demonstrated at all. You have no evidence for any of this, yet accept this as true. In order to do this you need faith, which, by definition, is believing something without evidence.

Disbelieving this fairytale can not be called faith. It is rational skepticism.

By the way, what exactly would i have faith in, since you claim this? The non-existence of god? That doesn't make logical sense.

Disbelief isn't always simply the lack of belief. As an agnostic, I don't believe that there is a God, though I accept the possibility. That's what a complete lack of faith looks like. Believing that there is no God requires faith. Regardless of whether it's a positive or negative assertion, it is an assertion.

And yes, faith in the non-existence of God actually does make sense. Since you can't prove that intelligent design isn't responsible for the universe, you must take it on faith that there is definitely no omni-being-creator type.

Atheism is a religion, too. Don't ever let anyone tell you differently.

In fact, if you want to get back to basic, Socratic philosophical reasoning, believing that anything you observe is real requires some amount of faith. For all you know, the only thing that truly exists is your consciousness, and this entire existence is a dream fabricated to pass the boredom of supreme lonliness.

Wow. You're just the LOLz.

Atheism is not a religion, and requires no faith what-so-ever.

Face it, your God is naturalism which lacks proof from a evidence stand point.

 

[LOki]

is this the best you can come up with ?

It's beating the living shit out of your fairy tale!

Another dreamer.

Is this the very best you can come up with?

 

[Hollie]

Wrong the schools have adopted this Ideology using the same methods that satan used on eve.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said to the woman, Is it so that God has said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Gen 3:2 And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die,
Gen 3:5 for God knows that in the day you eat of it, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

Satan lied and mislead them both just as the schools are being used by satan as tools to lead people astray. The bible has predicted this would happen. It was predicted almost 2,000 years ago.

2Ti 4:1 Therefore I solemnly witness before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is going to judge the living and the dead according to His appearance and His kingdom,
2Ti 4:2 preach the Word, be instant in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.
2Ti 4:3 For a time will be when they will not endure sound doctrine, but they will heap up teachers to themselves according to their own lusts, tickling the ear.
2Ti 4:4 And they will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned to myths.

What's comical is that you have never read the genesis tale in context and don't understand the chronology.

God lied. Satan, (created by god), told the truth. How ironic, don't you think?

If you want a tutorial, let me know.

Only in your warped mind.

Your lack of knowledge regarding the bible is not my problem, it's yours.

Like most religionists, you have not taken the time or expended the effort to understand the genesis tale, which I addressed elsewhere, and the underlying contradictions.

Well, let's look at the source material, why don't we (KJV):

Genesis 2:
------------------
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?


Moving on:

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence, evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.


continuing:

Genesis 3
-----------------------
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

________________________________________

Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive,and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good,but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent

B. Satan

C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a "nothing" doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof".

A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

It is quite a dilemma, isn’t it? For god, who, according to the bible, hates knowledge so much he made it the one thing forbidden in Eden and thus commanded Adam and Eve -- "ye shall eat of all things but not of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge -- for on that day, ye shall die" (they didn't die, as the serpent pointed out, they lived; God lied, Satan told the truth-- how ironic)

 

[LOki]

Disbelief isn't always simply the lack of belief. As an agnostic, I don't believe that there is a God, though I accept the possibility. That's what a complete lack of faith looks like. Believing that there is no God requires faith. Regardless of whether it's a positive or negative assertion, it is an assertion.

And yes, faith in the non-existence of God actually does make sense. Since you can't prove that intelligent design isn't responsible for the universe, you must take it on faith that there is definitely no omni-being-creator type.

Atheism is a religion, too. Don't ever let anyone tell you differently.

In fact, if you want to get back to basic, Socratic philosophical reasoning, believing that anything you observe is real requires some amount of faith. For all you know, the only thing that truly exists is your consciousness, and this entire existence is a dream fabricated to pass the boredom of supreme lonliness.

Wow. You're just the LOLz.

Atheism is not a religion, and requires no faith what-so-ever.

Face it, your God is naturalism which lacks proof from a evidence stand point.

I have no idea what this "God" thing is that you're referring to.

And as you are well aware, lacking "proof" is not the point.

And since there is evidence that this "God" thing of yours does not exist, atheism requires no faith what-so-ever.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here's an analogy. Does not believing in bigfoot take faith? No. The person who is making that claim that bigfoot does exist has to provide evidence. They have the burden of proof. Until that person does provide evidence, I am justified in suspending the belief that bigfoot is real. In the meanwhile, I am not employing faith while suspending belief, or disbelieving. That's a direct analogy to our discussion.

Christians are claiming an addition to the universe, namely that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being exists, is responsible for creation, both of the universe and of all life, and is interacting with our universe on a constant basis (answering prayers). So far, none of these assertions can be demonstrated at all. You have no evidence for any of this, yet accept this as true. In order to do this you need faith, which, by definition, is believing something without evidence.

Disbelieving this fairytale can not be called faith. It is rational skepticism.

By the way, what exactly would i have faith in, since you claim this? The non-existence of god? That doesn't make logical sense.

Disbelief isn't always simply the lack of belief. As an agnostic, I don't believe that there is a God, though I accept the possibility. That's what a complete lack of faith looks like. Believing that there is no God requires faith. Regardless of whether it's a positive or negative assertion, it is an assertion.

And yes, faith in the non-existence of God actually does make sense. Since you can't prove that intelligent design isn't responsible for the universe, you must take it on faith that there is definitely no omni-being-creator type.

Atheism is a religion, too. Don't ever let anyone tell you differently.

In fact, if you want to get back to basic, Socratic philosophical reasoning, believing that anything you observe is real requires some amount of faith. For all you know, the only thing that truly exists is your consciousness, and this entire existence is a dream fabricated to pass the boredom of supreme lonliness.

Wow. You're just the LOLz.

Atheism is not a religion, and requires no faith what-so-ever.

I guess you are gonna ignore this.

'No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have had parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution' ( Harvard geneticist and evolutionist Richard Lewontin. In an interview in Harpers entitled, 'Agnostic Evolutionists'. Feb. 1985 p. 61)

Think about this above argument long and hard. This evolutionist has admitted that no one has ever found an organism that did not originate from parent-stock! Is this evidence a death-blow to creation? Or is it a death-blow to evolution? Which 'theory' affirms that all life has come from pre-existing life? In Creation, ultimately everything came from God. (Genesis 1:1). In evolution, where did everything ultimately come from? Life or non-life?

It was posted earlier.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wow. You're just the LOLz.

Atheism is not a religion, and requires no faith what-so-ever.

Face it, your God is naturalism which lacks proof from a evidence stand point.

I have no idea what this "God" thing is that you're referring to.

And as you are well aware, lacking "proof" is not the point.

And since there is evidence that this "God" thing of yours does not exist, atheism requires no faith what-so-ever.

I'll bring it to your attention again

I guess you are gonna ignore this.

'No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have had parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution' ( Harvard geneticist and evolutionist Richard Lewontin. In an interview in Harpers entitled, 'Agnostic Evolutionists'. Feb. 1985 p. 61)

Think about this above argument long and hard. This evolutionist has admitted that no one has ever found an organism that did not originate from parent-stock! Is this evidence a death-blow to creation? Or is it a death-blow to evolution? Which 'theory' affirms that all life has come from pre-existing life? In Creation, ultimately everything came from God. (Genesis 1:1). In evolution, where did everything ultimately come from? Life or non-life?

It was posted earlier.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Here's an analogy. Does not believing in bigfoot take faith? No. The person who is making that claim that bigfoot does exist has to provide evidence. They have the burden of proof. Until that person does provide evidence, I am justified in suspending the belief that bigfoot is real. In the meanwhile, I am not employing faith while suspending belief, or disbelieving. That's a direct analogy to our discussion.

Christians are claiming an addition to the universe, namely that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being exists, is responsible for creation, both of the universe and of all life, and is interacting with our universe on a constant basis (answering prayers). So far, none of these assertions can be demonstrated at all. You have no evidence for any of this, yet accept this as true. In order to do this you need faith, which, by definition, is believing something without evidence.

Disbelieving this fairytale can not be called faith. It is rational skepticism.

By the way, what exactly would i have faith in, since you claim this? The non-existence of god? That doesn't make logical sense.

Disbelief isn't always simply the lack of belief. As an agnostic, I don't believe that there is a God, though I accept the possibility. That's what a complete lack of faith looks like. Believing that there is no God requires faith. Regardless of whether it's a positive or negative assertion, it is an assertion.

And yes, faith in the non-existence of God actually does make sense. Since you can't prove that intelligent design isn't responsible for the universe, you must take it on faith that there is definitely no omni-being-creator type.

Atheism is a religion, too. Don't ever let anyone tell you differently.

In fact, if you want to get back to basic, Socratic philosophical reasoning, believing that anything you observe is real requires some amount of faith. For all you know, the only thing that truly exists is your consciousness, and this entire existence is a dream fabricated to pass the boredom of supreme lonliness.

Wow. You're just the LOLz.

Atheism is not a religion, and requires no faith what-so-ever.

I'm glad you find it funny, always happy when I can share my entertainment.

The fact remains, however, that it can't be proven that there is definitely no God. Believing anything that you can't prove requires faith. Period.

 

[LOki]

Disbelief isn't always simply the lack of belief. As an agnostic, I don't believe that there is a God, though I accept the possibility. That's what a complete lack of faith looks like. Believing that there is no God requires faith. Regardless of whether it's a positive or negative assertion, it is an assertion.

And yes, faith in the non-existence of God actually does make sense. Since you can't prove that intelligent design isn't responsible for the universe, you must take it on faith that there is definitely no omni-being-creator type.

Atheism is a religion, too. Don't ever let anyone tell you differently.

In fact, if you want to get back to basic, Socratic philosophical reasoning, believing that anything you observe is real requires some amount of faith. For all you know, the only thing that truly exists is your consciousness, and this entire existence is a dream fabricated to pass the boredom of supreme lonliness.

Wow. You're just the LOLz.

Atheism is not a religion, and requires no faith what-so-ever.

I guess you are gonna ignore this.

'No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have had parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution' ( Harvard geneticist and evolutionist Richard Lewontin. In an interview in Harpers entitled, 'Agnostic Evolutionists'. Feb. 1985 p. 61)

Think about this above argument long and hard. This evolutionist has admitted that no one has ever found an organism that did not originate from parent-stock! Is this evidence a death-blow to creation? Or is it a death-blow to evolution? Which 'theory' affirms that all life has come from pre-existing life? In Creation, ultimately everything came from God. (Genesis 1:1). In evolution, where did everything ultimately come from? Life or non-life?

It was posted earlier.

Nifty! Does this mean that you're finally ready to put your big girl panties on?

Since you're so smugly asserting that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

That challenge was posted before too ... about a hundred times. Are you again going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

The evidence says you most certainly will.

 

[CandySlice]

Who slipped an inappropriate question? Not me. If God has not called on you, then conduct your life and your soul so that He does call on you.

I have no need to carry a discussion with a "Man of God", because such a person is of a dupe of himself, most of all.

God knows His own.

Tough, CandySlice. Tis what tis.

>>>>Jake said:
See, you pretend as if you know the be all and end all of scripture.

You don't because you are not His Man of God, His Prophet.

However, I know Him, I call Him Lord, and He calls me by my first name.
If you have that, Ram, you are OK. Don't sweat the small stuff, don't be a pharisee


Okay Jake, I've given you ample time to tell me what the voice of God sounds like and what did I get for my courtesy? You side-stepped, you pretended the question was never asked. . .in short you didn't have and answer so you dissembled.
You could have been a gent and admitted, 'well, okay I got a little carried away there' and that would have been a perfectly acceptable thing to admit, we are, after all, only human. OR you could have answered my question and told me what His voice sounded like. OR you could have said what you really experienced was feeling His presence. I could accept that because I know how that feels. And that would have been a lively discussion.

But, no, you didn't do that. YOU'RE go to position, you're default INSTINCTUAL answer was to slip the question. So you lied and you cheated. And that doesn't make you one of God's favorite son's, Jake. That doesn't make you a holy warrior, all that does is make you just one more Snake in the Garden.

What is inappropriate? I only asked you a follow-up question concerning you're amazing revelation that God calls you by your first name. So I asked what God's voice sounded like because IF you are the first person since Moses to hear God's voice I find that remarkable and worth discussing.
But you couldn't answer that question because you are not, as you seem to claim, one of the Chosen Ones or one of God's special friends or whatever. You are just like everyone else, operating on faith, not first hand conversations with the Lord himself. I get it you didn't really hear God's voice. What stood out for me was the way you handled that obvious slip of the tongue. instead of manning up and admitting it you were evasive and deceitful.
And that, my friend, makes you just another thumper with a mission to punish those that don't believe everything you say.

 

[Hollie]

Face it, your God is naturalism which lacks proof from a evidence stand point.

I have no idea what this "God" thing is that you're referring to.

And as you are well aware, lacking "proof" is not the point.

And since there is evidence that this "God" thing of yours does not exist, atheism requires no faith what-so-ever.

I'll bring it to your attention again

I guess you are gonna ignore this.

'No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have had parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution' ( Harvard geneticist and evolutionist Richard Lewontin. In an interview in Harpers entitled, 'Agnostic Evolutionists'. Feb. 1985 p. 61)

Think about this above argument long and hard. This evolutionist has admitted that no one has ever found an organism that did not originate from parent-stock! Is this evidence a death-blow to creation? Or is it a death-blow to evolution? Which 'theory' affirms that all life has come from pre-existing life? In Creation, ultimately everything came from God. (Genesis 1:1). In evolution, where did everything ultimately come from? Life or non-life?

It was posted earlier.

If everything came from the gods then you need to explain where your gods came from.

NOVA | The Judge Speaks

The Judge Speaks

The 2005 trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover was a major bout in the battle over the teaching of evolution. The crux of the case was a Dover, Pennsylvania school distract policy requiring that students hear a disclaimer that "gaps" exist in Darwin's theory. It also introduced an idea called intelligent design (ID). Was Dover's ID policy a covert way to put religion into a public school? Following six weeks of testimony from leading biologists as well as from ardent supporters of ID, Judge John Jones issued a 139-page ruling on the case. Here, Judge Jones reads some of his key findings.

 

[CandySlice]

I have no idea what this "God" thing is that you're referring to.

And as you are well aware, lacking "proof" is not the point.

And since there is evidence that this "God" thing of yours does not exist, atheism requires no faith what-so-ever.

I'll bring it to your attention again

I guess you are gonna ignore this.

'No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have had parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution' ( Harvard geneticist and evolutionist Richard Lewontin. In an interview in Harpers entitled, 'Agnostic Evolutionists'. Feb. 1985 p. 61)

Think about this above argument long and hard. This evolutionist has admitted that no one has ever found an organism that did not originate from parent-stock! Is this evidence a death-blow to creation? Or is it a death-blow to evolution? Which 'theory' affirms that all life has come from pre-existing life? In Creation, ultimately everything came from God. (Genesis 1:1). In evolution, where did everything ultimately come from? Life or non-life?

It was posted earlier.

If everything came from the gods then you need to explain where your gods came from.

NOVA | The Judge Speaks

The Judge Speaks

The 2005 trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover was a major bout in the battle over the teaching of evolution. The crux of the case was a Dover, Pennsylvania school distract policy requiring that students hear a disclaimer that "gaps" exist in Darwin's theory. It also introduced an idea called intelligent design (ID). Was Dover's ID policy a covert way to put religion into a public school? Following six weeks of testimony from leading biologists as well as from ardent supporters of ID, Judge John Jones issued a 139-page ruling on the case. Here, Judge Jones reads some of his key findings.

That is a very interesting link. This is the kind of thing I find interesting and worth hearing about. I don't know why Jake and YWC feel it's so important to call people with earnest questions 'ungodly 'or some version of that. I also find it hard to believe that people with such flawed and irrational (and at times downright dishonest) answers to the simplest of questions aren't operating on some agenda that really doesn't have anyones best interest in mind. These people are the kind of folks that caused me to start asking questions in the first place. You just catch them in too many lies and half-truths to believe what they say. And when caught they don't have even the slightest hint of shame over their deceptions. They just glass it over and go on to the next Gospel According to Themselves.

 

[LOki]

Disbelief isn't always simply the lack of belief. As an agnostic, I don't believe that there is a God, though I accept the possibility. That's what a complete lack of faith looks like. Believing that there is no God requires faith. Regardless of whether it's a positive or negative assertion, it is an assertion.

And yes, faith in the non-existence of God actually does make sense. Since you can't prove that intelligent design isn't responsible for the universe, you must take it on faith that there is definitely no omni-being-creator type.

Atheism is a religion, too. Don't ever let anyone tell you differently.

In fact, if you want to get back to basic, Socratic philosophical reasoning, believing that anything you observe is real requires some amount of faith. For all you know, the only thing that truly exists is your consciousness, and this entire existence is a dream fabricated to pass the boredom of supreme lonliness.

Wow. You're just the LOLz.

Atheism is not a religion, and requires no faith what-so-ever.

I'm glad you find it funny, always happy when I can share my entertainment.

The fact remains, however, that it can't be proven that there is definitely no God. Believing anything that you can't prove requires faith. Period.

Nonsense. By your inadequate notions of rational beliefs, since literally nothing can be "proven," then every belief is faith, and that's just retarded.