Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

#619 Oct 10, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you clarify premise 3?
"Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe."
I'm going to take the cheap shot Creationist rebuttal here and ask "Were you there?"
As far as I know, no scientist has put for a testable hypothesis for what was before the Big Bang.
There is the multi-verse idea but doesn't that kill the "we are a special snowflake universe" like Earth is the center of all creation?
No, I was not there, nor were you, which means you cannot say for sure there was a Big Bang, can you?

Since the universe is everything that exists, and since it had a beginning, therefore, before that beginning it did not exist, did it? And since everything that exists did not exist, that means nothing existed and there was nothing.

Since something never comes from nothing by any natural cause, therefore the cause of the universe, which came from nothing, must be supernatural.

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

#620 Oct 10, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
Many places actually, here's one example:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/...
Your link assumes that since salamanders were geographically separated and could no longer interbreed, that this somehow proves evolution. It does not! They are still salamanders. They have not changed into a different species as evolution requires. Here is information using different examples:

Birds of a feather don’t breed together
by Carl Wieland

The fascinating phenomenon known as ‘ring species’ is sometimes quite incorrectly used to ‘prove’ evolution. Species are not fixed and unchanging, and two apparently different species may in fact be genetically related. New species (as man defines them) can form. The herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull could not have been initially created as two separate groups reproducing only after their kind, or else they would not be joined by a chain of interbreeding intermediates.

There are also observations of other wild populations from which a reasonable person must infer that certain very similar species did indeed share the same ancestor, even though there is no complete ‘ring’.

Many have been misled into thinking this is evidence for evolution and against biblical creation. However, some thought reveals otherwise. The key to understanding this is to consider the vast amounts of complex information in all living things, coding for functionally useful structures and processes.

Creation as described in the book of Genesis implies that virtually all the genetic information in today’s world was present in the beginning, contained in separate populations (the original created kinds).

This information would not be expected to increase, but could decrease with time—in other words, any genetic changes would be expected to be informationally downhill.

Evolution (in the normal meaning of the word) implies on the other hand that a single cell has become people, pelicans and palm trees. If true, then this is an uphill process—involving a massive increase of information.

Change—but what sort?

The formation of new species actually fits the creation model very comfortably. The wolf, the dingo and the coyote are all regarded as separate species. However, they (perhaps along with several other species) almost certainly ‘split off’ from an original pair on the Ark—a species representing the surviving information of one created kind. Is there evidence that this can happen, and that it can happen without adding new information, that is, within the limits of the information already present at creation?

But is it conceivable that such change (which is obviously limited by the amount of information already present in the original kind) can extend to full, complete formation of separate species without any new information arising, without any new genes?(In other words, since evolution means lots of new, useful genes arising with time, can you have new species without any real evolution?)

Richard Lewontin is Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard. In his book The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change he says there are instances in which ‘speciation and divergence of new full species’ have obviously occurred using ‘the available repertoire of genetic variants’, without requiring any ‘novelties by new mutation’. In other words, an ancestral species can split into other species within the limits of the information already present in that kind—just as creationists maintain must have happened.

Ring species and similar examples actually highlight the great variety and rich information which must have been present in the original created kinds. They can be said to demonstrate evolution only to the gullible (pun intended).

http://creation.com/birds-of-a-feather-don-t-...

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

#621 Oct 10, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You are lying [about macroevolution].
Why do you lie in such easy-to-prove ways?
Proof of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/
Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory—or macroevolution.

Microevolution, on the other hand, does not involve increasing complexity. It involves changes only in size, shape, or color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. Each example of macroevolution would require thousands of “just right” mutations.

Microevolution can be thought of as horizontal (or even downward) change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an upward, beneficial change in complexity. Therefore, microevolution plus time will not produce macroevolution.(micro + time &#8800; macro)

Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution (and natural selection) occur. Minor change has been observed since history began. But notice how often evolutionists give evidence for microevolution to support macroevolution. It is macroevolution—which requires new abilities and increasing complexity, resulting from new genetic information—that is at the center of the creation-evolution controversy.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Lif...

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

#622 Oct 10, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody believes creationists liars with no evidence of god. When you cult grows up and becomes mature, it will realise just how stupid it looks for lying about god.
Science Proves God

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.”[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read,“Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[From "Reincarnation in the Bible?]

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

#623 Oct 10, 2013
Mr Clue wrote:
<quoted text>
Your alleged IQ is a myth. Evolution will still be THE mainstay of the life sciences.
Although Darwinists often talk about the central importance of “evolution” in gaining a basic understanding of the natural world, my research reveals that in the daily work of both scientific education and scientific research, evolution is rarely mentioned (or even a concern). This has been my experience as a research associate involved in cancer research in the department of experimental pathology at the Medical University of Ohio and as a college professor in the life and behavioral sciences for over 30 years. As Conrad E. Johanson, Ph.D.(Professor of Clinical Neurosciences and Physiology and Director of Neurosurgery Research at Brown Medical School in Rhode Island) noted, in the world of science research on a day-to-day basis, scientists

"rarely deal directly with macroevolutionary theory, be it biological or physical. For example, in my 25 years of neuroscience teaching and research I have only VERY rarely had to deal with natural selection, origins, macroevolution, etc. My professional work in science stems from rigorous training in biology, chemistry, physics, and math, not from world views about evolution. I suspect that such is the case for most scientists in academia, industry, and elsewhere" (2003, p. 1).

Many scientists are aware of the fact that Darwinism is largely ignored in science instruction. One good example provided by Dawkins involved an after lunch discussion with the teachers. He concluded that almost every teacher

"confided that, much as they would like to, they didn’t dare to do justice to evolution in their classes. This was not because of intimidation by fundamentalist parents (which would have been the reason in parts of America). It was simply because of the A-level syllabus. Evolution gets only a tiny mention, and then only at the end of the A-level course. This is preposterous, for, as one of the teachers said to me, quoting the great Russian American biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky ...,'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’" (2003, p. 58).

This statement is ideologically not factual. Biology makes perfect sense without ever mentioning Darwinism. Likewise Shanks’(2004 p. 228) claim that “evolutionary biology is the veritable glue that holds all the disparate branches of biological inquiry together and gives common focus to their collective endeavors” could hardly be true if it is not even covered in most science course work. The problem is, as recounted in The Harvard Crimson:

"Although the postmodern era questions everything else—the possibility of knowledge, basic morality and reality itself—critical discussion of Darwin is taboo. While evolutionary biologists test Darwin’s hypothesis in every experiment they conduct, the basic premise of evolution remains a scientific Holy of Holies, despite our absurd skepticism in other areas. Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins writes:'It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who does not believe in evolution, that person is either ignorant, stupid, or insane.' Biologists continue to recite the worn credo,'the central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution.' But where would physics be if Einstein had been forced to chant,'the central unifying principle of physics is Newtonian theory,' until he could not see beyond its limitations?" (Halvorson, 2003, p. 4).

http://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.asp

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#624 Oct 10, 2013
stoned any women lately, or unruly little boys, just like your arab god says so
Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
Although Darwinists often talk about the central importance of “evolution” in gaining a basic understanding of the natural world, my research reveals that in the daily work of both scientific education and scientific research, evolution is rarely mentioned (or even a concern). This has been my experience as a research associate involved in cancer research in the department of experimental pathology at the Medical University of Ohio and as a college professor in the life and behavioral sciences for over 30 years. As Conrad E. Johanson, Ph.D.(Professor of Clinical Neurosciences and Physiology and Director of Neurosurgery Research at Brown Medical School in Rhode Island) noted, in the world of science research on a day-to-day basis, scientists
"rarely deal directly with macroevolutionary theory, be it biological or physical. For example, in my 25 years of neuroscience teaching and research I have only VERY rarely had to deal with natural selection, origins, macroevolution, etc. My professional work in science stems from rigorous training in biology, chemistry, physics, and math, not from world views about evolution. I suspect that such is the case for most scientists in academia, industry, and elsewhere" (2003, p. 1).
Many scientists are aware of the fact that Darwinism is largely ignored in science instruction. One good example provided by Dawkins involved an after lunch discussion with the teachers. He concluded that almost every teacher
"confided that, much as they would like to, they didn’t dare to do justice to evolution in their classes. This was not because of intimidation by fundamentalist parents (which would have been the reason in parts of America). It was simply because of the A-level syllabus. Evolution gets only a tiny mention, and then only at the end of the A-level course. This is preposterous, for, as one of the teachers said to me, quoting the great Russian American biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky ...,'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’" (2003, p. 58).
This statement is ideologically not factual. Biology makes perfect sense without ever mentioning Darwinism. Likewise Shanks’(2004 p. 228) claim that “evolutionary biology is the veritable glue that holds all the disparate branches of biological inquiry together and gives common focus to their collective endeavors” could hardly be true if it is not even covered in most science course work. The problem is, as recounted in The Harvard Crimson:
"Although the postmodern era questions everything else—the possibility of knowledge, basic morality and reality itself—critical discussion of Darwin is taboo. While evolutionary biologists test Darwin’s hypothesis in every experiment they conduct, the basic premise of evolution remains a scientific Holy of Holies, despite our absurd skepticism in other areas. Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins writes:'It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who does not believe in evolution, that person is either ignorant, stupid, or insane.' Biologists continue to recite the worn credo,'the central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution.' But where would physics be if Einstein had been forced to chant,'the central unifying principle of physics is Newtonian theory,' until he could not see beyond its limitations?" (Halvorson, 2003, p. 4).
http://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.asp
olasonn

Harstad, Norway

#625 Oct 10, 2013
Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
Your link assumes that since salamanders were geographically separated and could no longer interbreed, that this somehow proves evolution. It does not!
You clearly don't understand evolution.
Pahu wrote:
They are still salamanders.
Of course. If they weren't it would disprove all we know about evolution.
Pahu wrote:
They have not changed into a different species as evolution requires.
You clearly don't understand what a species is either. I'm starting to see a pattern here.
Pahu wrote:
Here is information using different examples:
Birds of a feather don’t breed together
by Carl Wieland
Why on earth would you take the word of a medical doctor over close to all experts in any field of science?
Wait, I know why.
olasonn

Harstad, Norway

#626 Oct 10, 2013
Pahu wrote:
...endless copy/pasting...
I get it, you like pasting in from creationist websites. You can stop now, we've seen it all before.
Why don't you tell me what you think evolution is. In your own words.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#627 Oct 10, 2013
I wonder if Pahu gets paid to post, by the word? Or by the letter?
Thinking

UK

#628 Oct 10, 2013
Poohole's doing a lot of posting for just 30 pieces of silver.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
I wonder if Pahu gets paid to post, by the word? Or by the letter?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#629 Oct 10, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Poohole's doing a lot of posting for just 30 pieces of silver.
<quoted text>
hee hee hee... indeed he is.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#630 Oct 11, 2013
Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I was not there, nor were you, which means you cannot say for sure there was a Big Bang, can you?
Since the universe is everything that exists, and since it had a beginning, therefore, before that beginning it did not exist, did it? And since everything that exists did not exist, that means nothing existed and there was nothing.
Since something never comes from nothing by any natural cause, therefore the cause of the universe, which came from nothing, must be supernatural.
"Since the universe is everything that exists"

In the beginning, Pahu makes an unsupported assertion. And Behold! There was a False Conclusion.

And with a Word, God spake "What?"

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#631 Oct 11, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
I wonder if Pahu gets paid to post, by the word? Or by the letter?
We could make this a game. Let's guess what's really going on with his posts.

So far, this is what I'm guessing:

A) Pahu is Walt Brown advertising to buy his book to collect royalties.

B) Pahu is a disciple of Walt Brown spreading his manure to gain favors (or, at least, be included in his will).

C) Pahu is a true believer desperately clinging to the Bible like a security blanket a child uses to ward off bad things.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#632 Oct 11, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
We could make this a game. Let's guess what's really going on with his posts.
So far, this is what I'm guessing:
A) Pahu is Walt Brown advertising to buy his book to collect royalties.
B) Pahu is a disciple of Walt Brown spreading his manure to gain favors (or, at least, be included in his will).
C) Pahu is a true believer desperately clinging to the Bible like a security blanket a child uses to ward off bad things.
Ooooh! Oooh! B! Pick B!

<laughing>

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#633 Oct 11, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Ooooh! Oooh! B! Pick B!
<laughing>
Johnny, tell the contestant what he has "won"...

<Johnny> (sultry advertising voice) Well, Bob. Behind curtain number 2, you get to witness Pahu being released after a week in the gimp box!

In Walt Brown's fantasy, he'd be the one wearing the badge and the atheists would have the ball gags here:

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#634 Oct 12, 2013
Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
Although Darwinists often talk about the central importance of “evolution” in gaining a basic understanding of the natural world, my research reveals that in the daily work of both scientific education and scientific research, evolution is rarely mentioned (or even a concern). This has been my experience as a research associate involved in cancer research in the department of experimental pathology at the Medical University of Ohio and as a college professor in the life and behavioral sciences for over 30 years. As Conrad E. Johanson, Ph.D.(Professor of Clinical Neurosciences and Physiology and Director of Neurosurgery Research at Brown Medical School in Rhode Island) noted, in the world of science research on a day-to-day basis, scientists
"rarely deal directly with macroevolutionary theory, be it biological or physical. For example, in my 25 years of neuroscience teaching and research I have only VERY rarely had to deal with natural selection, origins, macroevolution, etc. My professional work in science stems from rigorous training in biology, chemistry, physics, and math, not from world views about evolution. I suspect that such is the case for most scientists in academia, industry, and elsewhere" (2003, p. 1).
Many scientists are aware of the fact that Darwinism is largely ignored in science instruction. One good example provided by Dawkins involved an after lunch discussion with the teachers. He concluded that almost every teacher
"confided that, much as they would like to, they didn’t dare to do justice to evolution in their classes. This was not because of intimidation by fundamentalist parents (which would have been the reason in parts of America). It was simply because of the A-level syllabus. Evolution gets only a tiny mention, and then only at the end of the A-level course. This is preposterous, for, as one of the teachers said to me, quoting the great Russian American biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky ...,'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’" (2003, p. 58).
This statement is ideologically not factual. Biology makes perfect sense without ever mentioning Darwinism. Likewise Shanks’(2004 p. 228) claim that “evolutionary biology is the veritable glue that holds all the disparate branches of biological inquiry together and gives common focus to their collective endeavors” could hardly be true if it is not even covered in most science course work. The problem is, as recounted in The Harvard Crimson:
"Although the postmodern era questions everything else—the possibility of knowledge, basic morality and reality itself—critical discussion of Darwin is taboo. While evolutionary biologists test Darwin’s hypothesis in every experiment they conduct, the basic premise of evolution remains a scientific Holy of Holies, despite our absurd skepticism in other areas. Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins writes:'It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who does not believe in evolution, that person is either ignorant, stupid, or insane.' Biologists continue to recite the worn credo,'the central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution.' But where would physics be if Einstein had been forced to chant,'the central unifying principle of physics is Newtonian theory,' until he could not see beyond its limitations?" (Halvorson, 2003, p. 4).
http://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.asp
The religious mental illness has its roots in cowardice and denialism.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#635 Oct 12, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Johnny, tell the contestant what he has "won"...
<Johnny> (sultry advertising voice) Well, Bob. Behind curtain number 2, you get to witness Pahu being released after a week in the gimp box!
In Walt Brown's fantasy, he'd be the one wearing the badge and the atheists would have the ball gags here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =S8kPqAV_74MXX
Indeed... or worse... much-much-much worse: being forced to sit still for hours on end, while listening to them talk about their delusional imaginary friends....

....!!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#636 Oct 13, 2013
O hai Pahu. I see you're still lying and spamming contradictory creationist BS.
Pahu wrote:
Science Proves God
Since by your own admission God is supernatural, supernatural can't be supernatural AND science at the same time. Science does not deal with the supernatural as the supernatural does not pass the scientific method.
Pahu wrote:
When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic
Which you then subsequently absolve yourself by breaking that same "law". Hence your "logic" is BS.
Pahu wrote:
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
1 - Correct.
2 - Correct.
3 - Not necessarily. There could have been an infinite string of them before ours. Or there could be a multiverse.
4 - Not necessarily, see above.
5 - Not necessarily, see avove. Or the universe could have been uncaused.
6 - Particle/anti-particle pairs have been observed to spontaneously appear in a vacuum. This is an uncaused event. This leads some creationists to reject quantum physics due to perceived theological implications, and others to pretend it proves creationism. Of course in reality, just like all sciences, quantum physics does nothing to deny or support the existence of Gods.
7 - Not necessarily, see above. Either way however, the supernatural is not science, period.
8 - Correct.
9 - Is God human? Did God shag his wife and make babies naturally? No, he magically poofed them into existence via a botched Frankenstein experiment. Ergo breaking your own "law".

You misrepresent the law of biogenesis. The law states that the spontaneous appearance of fully-formed lifeforms is not possible. In short, it's a rebuttal of creationism. It says nothing about the gradual development of life via natural chemical means. Also the law of biogenesis doesn't care that life evolves. Plus, evolution doesn't care whether life started by magic, naturally, by aliens, or by something else. All it needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Fact. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here. This is why the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis, for the same reason the theory of gravity doesn't rely on the origin of mass or germ theory rely on the origin of germs. As all 3 theories make successful scientific predictions based on observable phenomena.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#637 Oct 13, 2013
10 - Plain false assertion on your part. Life developing naturally from non-living matter is an every day occurrence all over the entire planet. So much so it's astounding you could even say this with a straight face. Everything that makes up your body was once a collection of non-living chemicals which have since been converted into a living organism. Same goes for every single living thing which has ever lived.

11 - Does not follow. Plus as the supernatural is the very antithesis of science, you can't use science to prove the supernatural. Of course if everything IS the result of the supernatural, then quite obviously it's all thanks to the Cosmic Sheep. Something no-one on the entire planet can prove wrong.

By the way Pahu, Walt Brown is still a non-scientist liar for Jesus who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Just like you.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#638 Oct 13, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed... or worse... much-much-much worse: being forced to sit still for hours on end, while listening to them talk about their delusional imaginary friends....
....!!
A-ha! You have exposed the hole in your armor!

Obviously, you have attended a church and listened to the sermons of the preacher/pastor/imam/guru/rabb i/medicine man/sky pilot/etc.

Everyone knows you go to church in your Sunday best, like a peacock strutting its feathers, to impress.

You should be too busy calculating other's big feathers than to listen to the sermon...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Stump a theist with 2 questions 4 min Patrick 39
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 14 min Cordwainer Trout 52
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 34 min CunningLinguist 227,477
Bill Maher's "dirty secret": He's deeply religi... 1 hr Thinking 3
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr Thinking 459
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Dak-Original 22,211
Why I have rejected ATHEISM because of the JEWS 2 hr Thinking 3
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••