How Old Do You The Earth Is?

[Hollie]

I thought you would run off for a copy and paste job,are you enrolled in some of those night courses yet ? I will wait for you to start presenting a rational response.

I thought you might be befuddled. The link I gave you was not highly technical and provides an overview of the studies being performed by the science community.

Tell us about the latest work being performed in the study of talking snakes.

 

[Hollie]

Some changes don't work out and that species dies off, like the Neanderthal's who couldn't adapt to the coming ice age and died out. But changes keep coming constantly to every living organism.

That is exactly my point. Why are supposed transitional species extinct if they were better adapted ? if they are extinct how did they pass on their traits ?

Transitional species evolve, and don't go extinct. Neanderthals weren't a transitional species, they were an offshoot species that died out because they couldn't adapt fast enough to their changing surroundings.

Sure they go extinct or would you like to point out a transitional species from supposed human evolution that is not a chimp and still alive ? We don't know if neanderthals died out because they couldn't adapt or they were consumed by the human population.

I was watching a show on neanderthals just last week, they made a pretty good case for neanderthals dying out because of climate change and that genetically, they hadn't mated with humans very much. Was very interesting. But whatever.

Transitional species evolve and keep going, they don't go extinct. But again, whatever. lol. It's just about how we use a certain word.

Conjecture is what this theory is based on,not evidence.

evolution is based on fossil evidence. What evidence do you have that a magical being poofed everything into existence?

Oh my, the worst evidence you could have pointed to,to support your belief. Irreducible Complexity and the evidence of purposeful design. Now let me ask you the same question, What evidence do you have showing that life just poofed itself in to existence without the aid of a designer to oversee the process.

Irreducible Complexity and the evidence of purposeful design.

the complexity of the physiology requires purposeful design that is observable over time with a beginning simplicity to equivalent structural adaptations.

for your purposes (biblical), why is the more complex not found in the earliest recordings of life on Earth - at the same time ?


also why is purposeful design not found in rock formations such as a finished sculpture predating micro organisms.

.

The cell and all it's components are not complex in your opinion ,really ? Once again you are basing it off the belief less complex organisms came first.

and what evidence do you have contrary to established scientific evidence on the subject.

and where is the "evidence of purposeful design" found in Earths rock formations the same as Botticelli's sculpture of Venus ?

.

Since all living organisms are made up of living cells my question to you still stands. Let me guess, you're gonna just keep regurgitating what you have been taught that all living organisms evolved from less complex organisms with no proof. Did the cell get more complex ?

I can't answer that question for other planets but we can see how this planet is just right for living organisms. Why did you deflect from my question about the cell being complex ?

There's abundant evidence that less complex organisms evolve into more complex organisms.

You need to sign up for those night courses In the biological sciences as I instructed you to do.

I didn't think it would take you very long to show up. Please provide this evidence and not just someones opinion. Explain it in detail.

Did bacteria develop into more complex cells much earlier in evolution than thought -- ScienceDaily

Start here.

When are going to enroll in those night courses.

Well if I did I would be teaching the courses but thank you for your concern. Well let's start with what you posted. You mean their earlier opinions might have been wrong ? How do you know they were accurate in their interpretations of the evidence of them evolving? please explain how bacteria became more complex since we see bacteria remain bacteria lol.

All of your questions have been addressed previously. Science relies on processes that demand repeatable results

show us some repeated results.....shucks, show us some once in a lifetime results.....show us anything......

You have the data. The problem you have is an inability to comprehend the science literature and then resolve the deficiencies apparent in worship of books of tales and fables.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Some changes don't work out and that species dies off, like the Neanderthal's who couldn't adapt to the coming ice age and died out. But changes keep coming constantly to every living organism.

That is exactly my point. Why are supposed transitional species extinct if they were better adapted ? if they are extinct how did they pass on their traits ?

Transitional species evolve, and don't go extinct. Neanderthals weren't a transitional species, they were an offshoot species that died out because they couldn't adapt fast enough to their changing surroundings.

Sure they go extinct or would you like to point out a transitional species from supposed human evolution that is not a chimp and still alive ? We don't know if neanderthals died out because they couldn't adapt or they were consumed by the human population.

I was watching a show on neanderthals just last week, they made a pretty good case for neanderthals dying out because of climate change and that genetically, they hadn't mated with humans very much. Was very interesting. But whatever.

Transitional species evolve and keep going, they don't go extinct. But again, whatever. lol. It's just about how we use a certain word.

Conjecture is what this theory is based on,not evidence.

evolution is based on fossil evidence. What evidence do you have that a magical being poofed everything into existence?

Oh my, the worst evidence you could have pointed to,to support your belief. Irreducible Complexity and the evidence of purposeful design. Now let me ask you the same question, What evidence do you have showing that life just poofed itself in to existence without the aid of a designer to oversee the process.

Irreducible Complexity and the evidence of purposeful design.

the complexity of the physiology requires purposeful design that is observable over time with a beginning simplicity to equivalent structural adaptations.

for your purposes (biblical), why is the more complex not found in the earliest recordings of life on Earth - at the same time ?


also why is purposeful design not found in rock formations such as a finished sculpture predating micro organisms.

.

The cell and all it's components are not complex in your opinion ,really ? Once again you are basing it off the belief less complex organisms came first.

and what evidence do you have contrary to established scientific evidence on the subject.

and where is the "evidence of purposeful design" found in Earths rock formations the same as Botticelli's sculpture of Venus ?

.

Since all living organisms are made up of living cells my question to you still stands. Let me guess, you're gonna just keep regurgitating what you have been taught that all living organisms evolved from less complex organisms with no proof. Did the cell get more complex ?

I can't answer that question for other planets but we can see how this planet is just right for living organisms. Why did you deflect from my question about the cell being complex ?

There's abundant evidence that less complex organisms evolve into more complex organisms.

You need to sign up for those night courses In the biological sciences as I instructed you to do.

I didn't think it would take you very long to show up. Please provide this evidence and not just someones opinion. Explain it in detail.

Did bacteria develop into more complex cells much earlier in evolution than thought -- ScienceDaily

Start here.

When are going to enroll in those night courses.

Well if I did I would be teaching the courses but thank you for your concern. Well let's start with what you posted. You mean their earlier opinions might have been wrong ? How do you know they were accurate in their interpretations of the evidence of them evolving? please explain how bacteria became more complex since we see bacteria remain bacteria lol.

All of your questions have been addressed previously. Science relies on processes that demand repeatable results

show us some repeated results.....shucks, show us some once in a lifetime results.....show us anything......

You have the data. The problem you have is an inability to comprehend the science literature and then resolve the deficiencies apparent in worship of books of tales and fables.

there is no data which proves that single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms.....

 

[Hollie]

Some changes don't work out and that species dies off, like the Neanderthal's who couldn't adapt to the coming ice age and died out. But changes keep coming constantly to every living organism.

That is exactly my point. Why are supposed transitional species extinct if they were better adapted ? if they are extinct how did they pass on their traits ?

Transitional species evolve, and don't go extinct. Neanderthals weren't a transitional species, they were an offshoot species that died out because they couldn't adapt fast enough to their changing surroundings.

Sure they go extinct or would you like to point out a transitional species from supposed human evolution that is not a chimp and still alive ? We don't know if neanderthals died out because they couldn't adapt or they were consumed by the human population.

I was watching a show on neanderthals just last week, they made a pretty good case for neanderthals dying out because of climate change and that genetically, they hadn't mated with humans very much. Was very interesting. But whatever.

Transitional species evolve and keep going, they don't go extinct. But again, whatever. lol. It's just about how we use a certain word.

Conjecture is what this theory is based on,not evidence.

evolution is based on fossil evidence. What evidence do you have that a magical being poofed everything into existence?

Oh my, the worst evidence you could have pointed to,to support your belief. Irreducible Complexity and the evidence of purposeful design. Now let me ask you the same question, What evidence do you have showing that life just poofed itself in to existence without the aid of a designer to oversee the process.

Irreducible Complexity and the evidence of purposeful design.

the complexity of the physiology requires purposeful design that is observable over time with a beginning simplicity to equivalent structural adaptations.

for your purposes (biblical), why is the more complex not found in the earliest recordings of life on Earth - at the same time ?


also why is purposeful design not found in rock formations such as a finished sculpture predating micro organisms.

.

The cell and all it's components are not complex in your opinion ,really ? Once again you are basing it off the belief less complex organisms came first.

and what evidence do you have contrary to established scientific evidence on the subject.

and where is the "evidence of purposeful design" found in Earths rock formations the same as Botticelli's sculpture of Venus ?

.

Since all living organisms are made up of living cells my question to you still stands. Let me guess, you're gonna just keep regurgitating what you have been taught that all living organisms evolved from less complex organisms with no proof. Did the cell get more complex ?

I can't answer that question for other planets but we can see how this planet is just right for living organisms. Why did you deflect from my question about the cell being complex ?

There's abundant evidence that less complex organisms evolve into more complex organisms.

You need to sign up for those night courses In the biological sciences as I instructed you to do.

I didn't think it would take you very long to show up. Please provide this evidence and not just someones opinion. Explain it in detail.

Did bacteria develop into more complex cells much earlier in evolution than thought -- ScienceDaily

Start here.

When are going to enroll in those night courses.

Well if I did I would be teaching the courses but thank you for your concern. Well let's start with what you posted. You mean their earlier opinions might have been wrong ? How do you know they were accurate in their interpretations of the evidence of them evolving? please explain how bacteria became more complex since we see bacteria remain bacteria lol.

All of your questions have been addressed previously. Science relies on processes that demand repeatable results

show us some repeated results.....shucks, show us some once in a lifetime results.....show us anything......

You have the data. The problem you have is an inability to comprehend the science literature and then resolve the deficiencies apparent in worship of books of tales and fables.

there is no data which proves that single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms.....

Go with talking snakes if you can't understand the experimentation.

Is there data on talking snakes, or data supporting magic and supernaturalism as viable mechanisms for the natural world?

 

[BreezeWood]

Some changes don't work out and that species dies off, like the Neanderthal's who couldn't adapt to the coming ice age and died out. But changes keep coming constantly to every living organism.

That is exactly my point. Why are supposed transitional species extinct if they were better adapted ? if they are extinct how did they pass on their traits ?

Transitional species evolve, and don't go extinct. Neanderthals weren't a transitional species, they were an offshoot species that died out because they couldn't adapt fast enough to their changing surroundings.

Sure they go extinct or would you like to point out a transitional species from supposed human evolution that is not a chimp and still alive ? We don't know if neanderthals died out because they couldn't adapt or they were consumed by the human population.

I was watching a show on neanderthals just last week, they made a pretty good case for neanderthals dying out because of climate change and that genetically, they hadn't mated with humans very much. Was very interesting. But whatever.

Transitional species evolve and keep going, they don't go extinct. But again, whatever. lol. It's just about how we use a certain word.

Conjecture is what this theory is based on,not evidence.

evolution is based on fossil evidence. What evidence do you have that a magical being poofed everything into existence?

Oh my, the worst evidence you could have pointed to,to support your belief. Irreducible Complexity and the evidence of purposeful design. Now let me ask you the same question, What evidence do you have showing that life just poofed itself in to existence without the aid of a designer to oversee the process.

Irreducible Complexity and the evidence of purposeful design.

the complexity of the physiology requires purposeful design that is observable over time with a beginning simplicity to equivalent structural adaptations.

for your purposes (biblical), why is the more complex not found in the earliest recordings of life on Earth - at the same time ?


also why is purposeful design not found in rock formations such as a finished sculpture predating micro organisms.

.

The cell and all it's components are not complex in your opinion ,really ? Once again you are basing it off the belief less complex organisms came first.

and what evidence do you have contrary to established scientific evidence on the subject.

and where is the "evidence of purposeful design" found in Earths rock formations the same as Botticelli's sculpture of Venus ?

.

Since all living organisms are made up of living cells my question to you still stands. Let me guess, you're gonna just keep regurgitating what you have been taught that all living organisms evolved from less complex organisms with no proof. Did the cell get more complex ?

I can't answer that question for other planets but we can see how this planet is just right for living organisms. Why did you deflect from my question about the cell being complex ?

There's abundant evidence that less complex organisms evolve into more complex organisms.

You need to sign up for those night courses In the biological sciences as I instructed you to do.

I didn't think it would take you very long to show up. Please provide this evidence and not just someones opinion. Explain it in detail.

Did bacteria develop into more complex cells much earlier in evolution than thought -- ScienceDaily

Start here.

When are going to enroll in those night courses.

Well if I did I would be teaching the courses but thank you for your concern. Well let's start with what you posted. You mean their earlier opinions might have been wrong ? How do you know they were accurate in their interpretations of the evidence of them evolving? please explain how bacteria became more complex since we see bacteria remain bacteria lol.

All of your questions have been addressed previously. Science relies on processes that demand repeatable results

show us some repeated results.....shucks, show us some once in a lifetime results.....show us anything......

You have the data. The problem you have is an inability to comprehend the science literature and then resolve the deficiencies apparent in worship of books of tales and fables.

there is no data which proves that single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms.....

Go with talking snakes if you can't understand the experimentation.

Is there data on talking snakes, or data supporting magic and supernaturalism as viable mechanisms for the natural world?

.

there is no data that a multicelled organism did not originate from a single cell.

is the marble alive by its shape ?

.

 

[PostmodernProph]

there is no data that a multicelled organism did not originate from a single cell.




.

how about the fact they are totally different from each other.......if such were true, there is no data that you did not originate from a fairly insubstantial gust of wind, either.....

 

[Mr. H.]

We are all at least 13 billion years old. Get over yourselves already.

 

[asterism]

The age of the universe — now believed to be about13.8 billion years— fits that model, as the number and maturity of observed galaxies seem to fit in the general scheme.

Hawking noted that Pope John Paul II admonished the scientific establishment against studying the moment of creation, as it was holy.

Hawkings closed by outlining "M-theory,". M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist.


The age of the universe — now believed to be about 13.8 billion years

But you should not ask such questions. Better to stay ignorant and have faith. Just ask Pope John Paul II admonished the scientific establishment in the 1980's against studying the moment of creation, as it was holy.

That's inaccurate. Hawkings comments are baseless. This is what the Pontiff said about science:

Finally, I cannot fail to address a word to scientists, whose research offers an ever greater knowledge of the universe as a whole and of the incredibly rich array of its component parts, animate and inanimate, with their complex atomic and molecular structures. So far has science come, especially in this century, that its achievements never cease to amaze us. In expressing my admiration and in offering encouragement to these brave pioneers of scientific research, to whom humanity owes so much of its current development, I would urge them to continue their efforts without ever abandoning the sapiential horizon within which scientific and technological achievements are wedded to the philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and indelible mark of the human person. Scientists are well aware that "the search for truth, even when it concerns a finite reality of the world or of man, is never-ending, but always points beyond to something higher than the immediate object of study, to the questions which give access to Mystery".

Pope John Paul II Faith and reason

Other than quite favorable admiration, John Paul II cautioned scientists against ignoring philosophical and ethical matters.

 

[Mr. H.]

The age of the universe — now believed to be about13.8 billion years— fits that model, as the number and maturity of observed galaxies seem to fit in the general scheme.

Hawking noted that Pope John Paul II admonished the scientific establishment against studying the moment of creation, as it was holy.

Hawkings closed by outlining "M-theory,". M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist.


The age of the universe — now believed to be about 13.8 billion years

But you should not ask such questions. Better to stay ignorant and have faith. Just ask Pope John Paul II admonished the scientific establishment in the 1980's against studying the moment of creation, as it was holy.

That's inaccurate. Hawkings comments are baseless. This is what the Pontiff said about science:

Finally, I cannot fail to address a word to scientists, whose research offers an ever greater knowledge of the universe as a whole and of the incredibly rich array of its component parts, animate and inanimate, with their complex atomic and molecular structures. So far has science come, especially in this century, that its achievements never cease to amaze us. In expressing my admiration and in offering encouragement to these brave pioneers of scientific research, to whom humanity owes so much of its current development, I would urge them to continue their efforts without ever abandoning the sapiential horizon within which scientific and technological achievements are wedded to the philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and indelible mark of the human person. Scientists are well aware that "the search for truth, even when it concerns a finite reality of the world or of man, is never-ending, but always points beyond to something higher than the immediate object of study, to the questions which give access to Mystery".

Pope John Paul II Faith and reason

Other than quite favorable admiration, John Paul II cautioned scientists against ignoring philosophical and ethical matters.

Proof positive that the Pope smokes dope.

 

[Darlene]

I really don't care how old this Earth is.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Some changes don't work out and that species dies off, like the Neanderthal's who couldn't adapt to the coming ice age and died out. But changes keep coming constantly to every living organism.

That is exactly my point. Why are supposed transitional species extinct if they were better adapted ? if they are extinct how did they pass on their traits ?

Transitional species evolve, and don't go extinct. Neanderthals weren't a transitional species, they were an offshoot species that died out because they couldn't adapt fast enough to their changing surroundings.

Sure they go extinct or would you like to point out a transitional species from supposed human evolution that is not a chimp and still alive ? We don't know if neanderthals died out because they couldn't adapt or they were consumed by the human population.

I was watching a show on neanderthals just last week, they made a pretty good case for neanderthals dying out because of climate change and that genetically, they hadn't mated with humans very much. Was very interesting. But whatever.

Transitional species evolve and keep going, they don't go extinct. But again, whatever. lol. It's just about how we use a certain word.

Conjecture is what this theory is based on,not evidence.

evolution is based on fossil evidence. What evidence do you have that a magical being poofed everything into existence?

Oh my, the worst evidence you could have pointed to,to support your belief. Irreducible Complexity and the evidence of purposeful design. Now let me ask you the same question, What evidence do you have showing that life just poofed itself in to existence without the aid of a designer to oversee the process.

Irreducible Complexity and the evidence of purposeful design.

the complexity of the physiology requires purposeful design that is observable over time with a beginning simplicity to equivalent structural adaptations.

for your purposes (biblical), why is the more complex not found in the earliest recordings of life on Earth - at the same time ?


also why is purposeful design not found in rock formations such as a finished sculpture predating micro organisms.

.

The cell and all it's components are not complex in your opinion ,really ? Once again you are basing it off the belief less complex organisms came first.

and what evidence do you have contrary to established scientific evidence on the subject.

and where is the "evidence of purposeful design" found in Earths rock formations the same as Botticelli's sculpture of Venus ?

.

Since all living organisms are made up of living cells my question to you still stands. Let me guess, you're gonna just keep regurgitating what you have been taught that all living organisms evolved from less complex organisms with no proof. Did the cell get more complex ?

I can't answer that question for other planets but we can see how this planet is just right for living organisms. Why did you deflect from my question about the cell being complex ?

There's abundant evidence that less complex organisms evolve into more complex organisms.

You need to sign up for those night courses In the biological sciences as I instructed you to do.

I didn't think it would take you very long to show up. Please provide this evidence and not just someones opinion. Explain it in detail.

Did bacteria develop into more complex cells much earlier in evolution than thought -- ScienceDaily

Start here.

When are going to enroll in those night courses.

Well if I did I would be teaching the courses but thank you for your concern. Well let's start with what you posted. You mean their earlier opinions might have been wrong ? How do you know they were accurate in their interpretations of the evidence of them evolving? please explain how bacteria became more complex since we see bacteria remain bacteria lol.

All of your questions have been addressed previously. Science relies on processes that demand repeatable results

show us some repeated results.....shucks, show us some once in a lifetime results.....show us anything......

You have the data. The problem you have is an inability to comprehend the science literature and then resolve the deficiencies apparent in worship of books of tales and fables.

there is no data which proves that single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms.....

Go with talking snakes if you can't understand the experimentation.

Is there data on talking snakes, or data supporting magic and supernaturalism as viable mechanisms for the natural world?

.

there is no data that a multicelled organism did not originate from a single cell.

is the marble alive by its shape ?

.

Your marble statue is an example of purposeful design.

Carefully chosen words there,are you trying to twist the question. The key term is evolve and no the natural cycle of sexual reproduction is not evolution.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

42

 

[sealybobo]

The age of the universe — now believed to be about13.8 billion years— fits that model, as the number and maturity of observed galaxies seem to fit in the general scheme.

Hawking noted that Pope John Paul II admonished the scientific establishment against studying the moment of creation, as it was holy.

Hawkings closed by outlining "M-theory,". M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist.


The age of the universe — now believed to be about 13.8 billion years

But you should not ask such questions. Better to stay ignorant and have faith. Just ask Pope John Paul II admonished the scientific establishment in the 1980's against studying the moment of creation, as it was holy.

That's inaccurate. Hawkings comments are baseless. This is what the Pontiff said about science:

Finally, I cannot fail to address a word to scientists, whose research offers an ever greater knowledge of the universe as a whole and of the incredibly rich array of its component parts, animate and inanimate, with their complex atomic and molecular structures. So far has science come, especially in this century, that its achievements never cease to amaze us. In expressing my admiration and in offering encouragement to these brave pioneers of scientific research, to whom humanity owes so much of its current development, I would urge them to continue their efforts without ever abandoning the sapiential horizon within which scientific and technological achievements are wedded to the philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and indelible mark of the human person. Scientists are well aware that "the search for truth, even when it concerns a finite reality of the world or of man, is never-ending, but always points beyond to something higher than the immediate object of study, to the questions which give access to Mystery".

Pope John Paul II Faith and reason

Other than quite favorable admiration, John Paul II cautioned scientists against ignoring philosophical and ethical matters.

So one of the smartest men in the world "misinterpreted" the Pope? That's the problem with religion. The lord said this and the lord said that and everyone has their own translation.

Whatever actually. Does it matter if the Pope said it? Fact is, the Pope is a liar or a fool because he believes the Adam & Eve, Moses, Noah & Jesus stories. He believes those stories LITERALLY! If he doesn't he should say so publicly. Do you take those stories literally? At one time people lived to be hundreds of years old? 2 of every species? Jesus performed miracles? Moses parted the sea? REALLY?

So lets not get off topic here. Fact is, you guys have zero proof of god unless you believe the fables in the ancient books??? Do you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So one of the smartest men in the world "misinterpreted" the Pope? That's the problem with religion. The lord said this and the lord said that and everyone has their own translation.

Whatever actually. Does it matter if the Pope said it? Fact is, the Pope is a liar or a fool because he believes the Adam & Eve, Moses, Noah & Jesus stories. He believes those stories LITERALLY! If he doesn't he should say so publicly. Do you take those stories literally? At one time people lived to be hundreds of years old? 2 of every species? Jesus performed miracles? Moses parted the sea? REALLY?

So lets not get off topic here. Fact is, you guys have zero proof of god unless you believe the fables in the ancient books??? Do you?

It wouldn't be the first time Hawking was wrong.

 

[sealybobo]

So one of the smartest men in the world "misinterpreted" the Pope? That's the problem with religion. The lord said this and the lord said that and everyone has their own translation.

Whatever actually. Does it matter if the Pope said it? Fact is, the Pope is a liar or a fool because he believes the Adam & Eve, Moses, Noah & Jesus stories. He believes those stories LITERALLY! If he doesn't he should say so publicly. Do you take those stories literally? At one time people lived to be hundreds of years old? 2 of every species? Jesus performed miracles? Moses parted the sea? REALLY?

So lets not get off topic here. Fact is, you guys have zero proof of god unless you believe the fables in the ancient books??? Do you?

It wouldn't be the first time Hawking was wrong.

Are you like the pope? Do you take all the unbelievable stories in Old & New Testament literally? Then you agree he's delusional.

Do you believe all the Mormon stories that Romney believes?

Do you believe the stories in the Koran?

If not then I guess you aren't as dumb as the pope or the leaders of these other churches.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you like the pope? Do you take all the unbelievable stories in Old & New Testament literally? Then you agree he's delusional.

Do you believe all the Mormon stories that Romney believes?

Do you believe the stories in the Koran?

If not then I guess you aren't as dumb as the pope or the leaders of these other churches.

How is pointing out that Hawking is not perfect a license to attack a position I never had? Are you another idiot that prefers to argue with the voices in your head rather than address the actual points I make?

 

[sealybobo]

Are you like the pope? Do you take all the unbelievable stories in Old & New Testament literally? Then you agree he's delusional.

Do you believe all the Mormon stories that Romney believes?

Do you believe the stories in the Koran?

If not then I guess you aren't as dumb as the pope or the leaders of these other churches.

How is pointing out that Hawking is not perfect a license to attack a position I never had? Are you another idiot that prefers to argue with the voices in your head rather than address the actual points I make?

I compliment you and you attack me? LOL

So are you a Hawking fan and you just wanted to point out that the Pope actually never said that? Like politicians back then, they use to get away with saying a lot of shit off camera. Today I'd be able to look up exactly what the pope said on Youtube. Look at how Romney got caught talking about 90% of the country. Everyone has a smart phone stupid. LOL.

What is your position? You seem defensive. Makes be believe I struck a nerve when I pointed out that you either have to defend the Pope's insane position that Jesus really did perform miracles and was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, or you have to admit that his belief is an insane belief. If I told you such a story you'd tell me I'm insane or a liar trying to start a cult. That's where Christianity came from. How many founding members? 12, but Judah was a traitor so actually 11 people saw Jesus do miracles.

Or, I hear a version that up to 500 people saw him rise to heaven after 3 days of being dead. Really? Then the Jews were horrible at keeping track of history, because the Roman's have no record of any miracles performed. How come god only goes to the most ignorant parts of the world same as UFO's and big foot?

 

[sealybobo]

Us Atheists need to know who we are dealing with here. If you want to debate me I need to know if you are a christian, a christian light, a jew, muslim, mormon. I need to know if you take the stories literally too. That's being a theist light.

So there are many theist camps. Which crazy are you? Need to know. And if you don't believe in organized religion either, then you have even less of an argument on why you believe in god, because then you admit that you realize that man made religion is bullshit but you just can't believe that the entire premise is made up.

I use to think that way too. I had my own version of god. But really, what evidence do I have for a god? There could be a god, but there is zero evidence for one. And all the evidence actually points to that our human minds made him up.

I'd rather go with what science says than any church.

 

[BillyP]

Us Atheists need to know who we are dealing with here. If you want to debate me I need to know if you are a christian, a christian light, a jew, muslim, mormon. I need to know if you take the stories literally too. That's being a theist light.

So there are many theist camps. Which crazy are you? Need to know. And if you don't believe in organized religion either, then you have even less of an argument on why you believe in god, because then you admit that you realize that man made religion is bullshit but you just can't believe that the entire premise is made up.

I use to think that way too. I had my own version of god. But really, what evidence do I have for a god? There could be a god, but there is zero evidence for one. And all the evidence actually points to that our human minds made him up.

I'd rather go with what science says than any church.

That's why they invented the Church of Scientology!

 

[asterism]

So one of the smartest men in the world "misinterpreted" the Pope? That's the problem with religion. The lord said this and the lord said that and everyone has their own translation.

Go find what the Pope said if you don't believe me. John Paul II was very vocal about his support for science and evolution.

The Vatican s View of Evolution Pope Paul II and Pope Pius

Whatever actually. Does it matter if the Pope said it? Fact is, the Pope is a liar or a fool because he believes the Adam & Eve, Moses, Noah & Jesus stories. He believes those stories LITERALLY!

No he didn't.

If he doesn't he should say so publicly.

He did.

Do you take those stories literally?

No.

At one time people lived to be hundreds of years old? 2 of every species? Jesus performed miracles? Moses parted the sea? REALLY?

I believe the miracles, not much of the rest literally.

So lets not get off topic here. Fact is, you guys have zero proof of god unless you believe the fables in the ancient books??? Do you?

You are free to believe what you want but you're only undercutting your own point of view when you repeat lies about the Catholic Church.