When Will Evolutionists Confess Their...

When Will Evolutionists Confess Their Atheistic Presuppositions?

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 92
Next Last
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#1 Feb 14, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Given a choice between a moderately improbable event such as the formation of the simplest self replicating molecule versus an incalculably more improbable event such as the quantum poofing of an entire advanced creature (in fact millions of different advanced creatures independently), then the only choice is to accept the less improbable event.
I call on the funnel of smoke to confess his atheistic presuppositions. If abiogenesis is to be taken as a rational science, then it must acknowledge all possibilities that are consistent with the fundamental laws of nature.

It is certainly possible that no instruction manual, with instructions on how to build one kind of self-replicating molecular machine, may be modified in slow steps to produce a viable series of molecular machines, the last one in the series being an astonishingly beautiful, healthy and intelligent woman.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#2 Feb 25, 2014
There are many examples of the outrageous arrogance of blind minds that kowtow to the folly of the mainstream science establishment. Here is just one illustration:

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#3 Feb 26, 2014
Talking to yourself again, eh Shoob?

“No such thing as ABIODARWINISM”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

No ABIODARWINISTS either!

#4 Feb 26, 2014
Bluenose wrote:
Talking to yourself again, eh Shoob?
Shub the Boob has a groupie.
PattiErish

Jackson, MO

#5 Mar 2, 2014
GOT Laymen terms anyone?

**bwhahahahahaha

Judge Judy wrote a book called, "Keep It Simple Stupid".
Not sure who she intended her audience to be, but ... well I most
certainly didn't need to read it. ;~)

Pardon the intrusion and Peace & <3 2 YA regardless ... mmmkay?
FREE SERVANT

Tucker, GA

#6 Mar 2, 2014
PattiErish wrote:
GOT Laymen terms anyone?
**bwhahahahahaha
Judge Judy wrote a book called, "Keep It Simple Stupid".
Not sure who she intended her audience to be, but ... well I most
certainly didn't need to read it. ;~)
Pardon the intrusion and Peace & <3 2 YA regardless ... mmmkay?
Evolution=Not purposed by design. Creation=Purpose by design.

“No such thing as ABIODARWINISM”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

No ABIODARWINISTS either!

#7 Mar 2, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution=Not purposed by design. Creation=Purpose by design.
Evolution = science. Religion = belief. Creationism = dogmatic cultism.
Got IT

Jackson, MO

#8 Mar 2, 2014
Hey Dan = saw yours --= Thanks ps, nice to see you again. Weathers some crazy
out there, EH?

'
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution=Not purposed by design. Creation=Purpose by design.
say my name = thanks
PsssT

Jackson, MO

#9 Mar 2, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution = science. Religion = belief. Creationism = dogmatic cultism.
Haven't the proper time at this moment, but I look forward to you further
clarifying those words for me.

Peace :))

Be Safe out there ... folks it's a mess in many places,... ahhhh, not just these discussions.
:O

L8r
ontopz

Jackson, MO

#10 Mar 12, 2014
Whrd evryn go ?

iv openin ,, may i shr 2 ?

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#11 Mar 12, 2014
Cat walking over the keyboard again?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#12 Mar 12, 2014
Bluenose wrote:
Cat walking over the keyboard again?
That's Shoobee for ya.

Careful tho, you don't wanna turn him on.
mash

Europe

#13 May 15, 2014
how could nature come up with a need, like say, food (source of energy for its brand new abiogenetic organisms), and then provide for this need independent of the hungry organisms? the odds against that happening blindly are astronomical. it simply cant happen.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#14 May 15, 2014
mash wrote:
how could nature come up with a need, like say, food (source of energy for its brand new abiogenetic organisms), and then provide for this need independent of the hungry organisms? the odds against that happening blindly are astronomical. it simply cant happen.
Nature didn't come up with a "need". Energy is prevalent. Later on life developed and fed off it. Since it happened the odds of it happening are 100%.

The problem is that you think the universe was created with a goal in mind - life. Specifically, you. There is zero evidence of this goal-direction.
mash

Europe

#15 May 15, 2014
you say" later, life developed and FED of it", why do you think IT fed off it if there wasnt a need to do so? i dare repeat nature came up with a need and went ahead to satisfy that need.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#16 May 15, 2014
You can dare what you like, but the fact is that, according to the evidence, the universe existed for LONG before life developed. And when life was here, life fed off the ABUNDANT energy that was around.

If you have evidence to the contrary then please produce it.
mash

South Africa

#17 May 15, 2014
This feeding off the abudant energy available SATISFIED the (abiogenetic) organism that NEEDED to feed, and thus absorb the energy that it NEEDED for vital body functions.cant you see there had to be both the need to eat as well as food to be eaten. Both developed indepedently?
mash

South Africa

#18 May 15, 2014
can the human mind envisage a situation like that developing spontaneously?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#19 May 15, 2014
mash wrote:
This feeding off the abudant energy available SATISFIED the (abiogenetic) organism that NEEDED to feed, and thus absorb the energy that it NEEDED for vital body functions.cant you see there had to be both the need to eat as well as food to be eaten. Both developed indepedently?
The need to eat did not arise until after life developed. Before life, there was no need to eat, period. Hence there is no reason to presume the universe was geared specifically for life to feed upon it.

It's always possible, sure. But so far zero evidence.
mash

South Africa

#20 May 15, 2014
I feel like you dont want to address this issue in your mind. Am not concerned with when or at what point there arose a need to eat. My take is,when eventually the organism needed to ingest energy from without ,there was,available outside its own body, a source (food) packaged in an ingestible format. It certainly could not chew bamboo stems so there had to be a food ingestible by it. And dont forget the NEED had to be there first ,and this is not simple stuff.NEED means an ingestation mechanism and self preservation drive(or motivation). Dont you see and agree the two had to develope simultaneously side by side each other?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 92
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min macumazahn 195,686
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 min Richardfs 11,793
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 19 min MIDutch 150,659
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 22 min Brian_G 29,598
Christianity and why its wrong + evolution debates 10 hr scientia potentia... 2
Proof that all of Christianity is a lie 11 hr scientia potentia... 3
Humans Performing Dentistry 8000 Years Before F... Wed MIDutch 1
More from around the web