Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#113 Oct 23, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Look MrDesperate I'm not trying to show you proof! Got it? I'm here to watch a train wreck, Atheist and Junk science. Don't come here on a atheists posting board expecting to find Devine proof of God! What a fool!! LMFAO
A train wreck? That would be you getting your ass kicked with every post. You come on an atheist thread, and fail to disprove the atheists lack of belief. Guess who loses? You and your tired mythological beliefs.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#114 Oct 24, 2012
Doctor Who Two wrote:
Facts: Atheist consist of 2.3% of the world population
Fact: Atheist Definition:
athe·ist\ˈā-thē-ist\
noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
Fact: Most Atheist leave the faith
Fact: The United States was not founded on atheism.
Fact: Atheism is a Religion
Fact: science is corrupt
Fact - McDonald's is the most popular fast food chain.

Therefore, anyone who eats at Chik-Fil-A is in league with Satan.

If you are going to use poor logic, I can, too. Right?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#115 Oct 26, 2012
MrDesoto1 wrote:
<quoted text>So where's YOUR proof of God?
You seem to be unable to understand what you read. I said I'm not here to convert or show you the proof of God.
I prefer to be holding the ace and watch you atheist double down.

“Tis the Season for Reason!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#116 Oct 26, 2012
Who Would Win in a Fight: a Modern Human or a Neanderthal?

We beat them at evolution. But what about fisticuffs?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_scie...

"A team of archaeologists, paleoanthropologists, and paleoartists has created a more accurate Neanderthal reconstruction, based on a nearly complete skeleton discovered in France more than 100 years ago. The La Ferrassie Neanderthal man was short but stocky. If a modern man came nose-to-nose with a Neanderthal, could he take him in a fight?

Possibly. A Neanderthal would have a clear power advantage over his Homo sapiens opponent. Many of the Neanderthals archaeologists have recovered had Popeye forearms, possibly the result of a life spent stabbing wooly mammoths and straight-tusked elephants to death and dismantling their carcasses. Neanderthals also developed strong trapezius, deltoid, and tricep muscles by dragging 50 pounds of meat 30 miles home to their families. A Neanderthal had a wider pelvis and lower center of gravity than Homo sapiens, which would have made him a powerful grappler. That doesnt mean, however, that we would be an easy kill for our extinct relative. Homo sapiens probably has a longer reach, on average, than Neanderthals did, and more stamina. Most importantly, we could deploy these advantages to maximum effect using our superior wits. Its obviously speculative, but a modern man of above-average build would have an excellent chance of defeating a Neanderthal in hand-to-hand combat if he could keep his opponent at arms length, survive the initial onslaught, and wear him down.

The image of Neanderthal as a squat, chiseled brute is sometimes overstated. Based on the small number of known specimens, it appears that the males averaged 5 feet 5 inches tall, which is only 2 inches shorter than the average Chinese man today and 4 inches shorter than the average American man. Bone structures in many Neanderthal specimens suggest that their biceps were no larger than those of an average Homo sapiens, and some of the Neanderthals unearthed in the Middle East were as slender as modern humans. Neanderthals also had an intellectual side: They decorated their bodies with sparkly paint and sea shells, and some archaeologists think they even played a primitive flute. There was tremendous variation in the build and ferocity of Neanderthals, as there is among modern humans. The probable result of any interspecies scrap, therefore, would depend on the individual combatants involved.

It would also depend on training. Theres no telling how a reanimated Neanderthal would attack or defend himself in a fight against a Homo sapiens. A trained modern fighter would know exactly where to strike the Neanderthal for maximum damage, giving him a tremendous advantage. On the other hand, the human brain can work against us in combat. Many animals continue to struggle long after they are shot, for example, while humans tend to collapse immediately under the psychological stress of being wounded. When it comes to fighting for our lives, we are sometimes too smart for our own good.

Neanderthals are lightweights compared to some of our other evolutionary neighbors. You would not want to encounter Homo heidelbergensis on a deserted sidewalk. Some specimens were more than 7 feet tall with thick bones. They were also cannibalistic at times, which means they knew how to fight other archaic humans. Their brains were smaller than those of Neanderthal or Homo sapiensthats a tactical disadvantage, but they probably fought with an animalistic ferocity. Paranthropus boisei would also have been a terror in combat. Often described as a gorilla head on a human body, the creature had powerful jaws and enormous teeth, as well as well-developed back muscles."

The Young Turks weigh in on it:

&fe ature=em-uploademail-new

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#117 Oct 26, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be unable to understand what you read. I said I'm not here to convert or show you the proof of God.
I prefer to be holding the ace and watch you atheist double down.
That's good. Since you're not smart enough to convert anyone, and you have zero evidence of a god.
The ace? What game are you playing? Oh, I know!! It's creationist poker!! You have one real card, and imagine four others!!!LOL!!!

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#120 Oct 26, 2012
Golden Buzzard wrote:
<quoted text>
prove that God does not exist-prove why our cells continually reproduce:Cell reproduction rates vary greatly depending on the type of cell. Limiting discussion to the human body, some cells rarely if ever reproduce (typically nerve and brain cells), while others, such as those lining the inside and outside of the human body, split as often as every 20 hours. Red blood cells are reproduced about every thee months.
Citations:http://www.newton.de p.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole0 0482.htm
but the life span of humans average 72-73 years why? 10 percent of our brain is used why is that? Why can't we use 20 percent, 30 percent or more??? The answers to these questions are found in the handbook for life -The Hold Bible
Prove that god doesn't exist? Grow up. As soon as anyone asks for proof of a negative, It demonstrates a lack of logic and common sense. For example...How about if you prove pink, fluffy, flying, unicorns don't exist?

As for this wonderment of cell reproduction... Why does this amaze you so? It is obviously a product of advanced evolution.

The idea that "we only use 10% of our brain has been debunked a long time ago. Welcome to the 21st century. It may be true that YOU only use 10% of your brain, but everyone else uses 100%.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#122 Oct 29, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
2.3% what a joke your religion is!

You claim all humans are born atheist.
Ok that means at one time you had 100% of the human population. The current percentage of the world population is at 2.3%.

That means that 97.7% of your congregation has left your faith!!

WTF is wrong with you guys?
97.7%!!!!!!!
Do you realize how many people that is?

Man your not just losing them at that rate there running from you! LMFAO
You can't really be this stupid.

Can you?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#123 Oct 29, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
From: The Columbus Dispatch:

February 4, 2011

Church, without God

“Stan Bradley likes Bible stories, admires Martin Luther and uses expressions such as 'heavens, no.'

The Lithopolis man is president of a local congregation and rarely misses a Sunday service. Occasionally, he goes to his wife's church instead.

For these and other reasons, Bradley considers himself religious.”

He is also an atheist.

continued:

“Like Bradley, some atheists participate in organized religion for its social and psychological benefits.”

continued:

“Churches are great places to find friends, support and youth education, so nonbelievers and believers alike join congregations to fill those needs, he said.

He has spoken to elderly and sick people who can no longer go to church and they say they most miss the feeling of community.

Recent research from Harvard University and the University of Wisconsin backs him up. It found that religious people tend to be happier than nonreligious people, not because of belief but because of the friendships found at church.”
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/faith...

“religious people tend to be happier than nonreligious people”[I have said this all along, and my posts are still on the board to confirm it. Now you hear it straight from the atheist, lol.]

Posted by derek4
Because of the community.

Sometimes that's better than isolation.
swordsbane

Beloit, WI

#124 Oct 29, 2012
KJV: The only places that are spouting that statistic are religious sites. The study itself is from a religious organization on GU campus. It's not from a statistician, it's not a census. Find some corroborating evidence and I may believe you. That's like a Republican PAC saying "We have a study saying that Republicans are the largest political party in the US." Is it true? It may or may not be, but I surely am not going to trust a Republican organization to tell me, and I'm not going to act as if it is just on their say so, so I'm not going to trust a Christian organization telling me that Atheists don't retain their followers (whatever that means)

I DO know (and even Religious groups acknowledge it) that organized religion is on the decline, and has been for about forty years. "No Religion" is the fastest growing demographic.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#125 Oct 30, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>Why?
There is not one fact that disproves our faith. Not one. And it's not for the lack of trying. If I had one tenth of the money science wasted trying to disprove the bible I would be rich! Oh wait I am already rich never mind! LOL
Science hasn't spent one thin dime trying to disprove god.

That's just the way it turned out.

Does it hurt to be stupid?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#126 Oct 30, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>Here's the question you need to ask yourself. Why would I care?
Think hard, what difference would you being the only atheist make? We all ready know your the last living example of crossing jack assess with monkeys.
And I don't care Skippy you make no effect what so ever on my life. Skippy I respond to you when I feel like it. I post when I feel like it. You are not even dust in the wind to me.
And you don't believe in your god either.

You just can't admit it to yourself.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#127 Oct 30, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>Skippy, Skippy, Skippy!

I told you, I don't give a damn about proving anything to you. I'm just here to bitch slap you around. You little mommy's Troll. LMFAO

"“The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science”

“Evolution is a guess, a speculation, an hypothesis, a theory, a faith. Yes, evolution is a religion as I document in my book, "Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith?" And, since it is a faith, it should not be taught in public schools. At least, any thinking, honest person would agree that if it is, then scientific creationism should be taught along with it. After all, we do believe in balance and fairness, don't we? Or do we?

It's interesting that the hypocrites at the ACLU (who helped fund the Scopes Trial) whined in Dayton that only one theory of origins can legally be taught in Tennessee and that's unfair. Well, now they are on the inside, and demand to keep the same monopoly that they argued against. When I asked the ACLU to support my bill in the Indiana House of Representatives that required Indiana schools to teach scientific creation and evolution equally, they refused to support my bill! Surprise, surprise, surprise. I thought various ideas should be presented to students so they could make up their own minds. Could it be that evolutionists are not as sure of their faith as they pretend to be? I think so. They are like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat – that isn't there.

Sorry professors, evolution is NOT a fact. It is a fraud, a fake, a farce and a faith, and taxpayers should demand that the religion of evolution be kept out of public schools unless the truth of scientific creationism is also taught.”"

http://www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html
Keep trying.

You might convince yourself yet.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#130 Nov 1, 2012
Doctor Who Two wrote:
How does this work?
Here are some interesting facts to consider. If you built a dam across the Grand Canyon a huge lake would fill in behind it covering several states. The two red lines in the picture below represent what is called the snow line. Between those two lines is a ridge that gets about 6900ft - 8500ft above sea level. The river enters the canyon at 2800ft elevation. The river then flows downhill for about 270 miles and comes out the other side at 1800ft elevation.
So, the river comes in at 2800ft elevation and comes out at 1800ft elevation. However, the tops of Grand Canyon are at 6900ft – 8500ft elevation. The top of Grand Canyon is higher than where the river enters the canyon by over 4,000 feet! Rivers do not flow uphill. Therefore, it is physically impossible for the Colorado River to have carved out the Grand Canyon.
http://www.truthingenesis.com/The_Grand_Canyo...
I posted a link that explains that from a geology perspective. It is very simple. Didn't you look at it? I'll give you a hint. If you look at the walls of the canyon at the present highest part, you will see stratification(which also indicates that it took millions of years to form). You will notice that some of the layers are pushed up, This indicates that that part of the canyon was not always at it's present elevation. I will gladly repost the link for you.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#131 Nov 1, 2012
Doctor Who Two wrote:
What about this?
Science has a problem with dates:
"
In 1944, as a ten year old boy,
Newton Anderson dropped a lump of coal and broke it in half in his basement and found that it contained this bell inside. The bituminous coal that was mined near his house in Upshur County West Virginia is supposed to be about 300 million years old! What is a brass bell with an iron clapper doing in coal ascribed to the Carboniferous Period? According to Norm Sharbaugh’s book Ammunition (which includes several “coal anecdotes”) the bell is an antediluvian artifact (made before the Genesis Flood). The Institute for Creation Research had the bell submitted to the lab at the University of Oklahoma. There a nuclear activation analysis revealed that the bell contains an unusual mix of metals, different from any known modern alloy production (including copper, zinc, tin, arsenic, iodine, and selenium)."
Yes, that is what he claimed. Of course he did not have the piece of coal, so his story could not be verified.
Fail.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#132 Nov 1, 2012
Doctor Who Two wrote:
How does this work?

Here are some interesting facts to consider. If you built a dam across the Grand Canyon a huge lake would fill in behind it covering several states. The two red lines in the picture below represent what is called the snow line. Between those two lines is a ridge that gets about 6900ft - 8500ft above sea level. The river enters the canyon at 2800ft elevation. The river then flows downhill for about 270 miles and comes out the other side at 1800ft elevation.
So, the river comes in at 2800ft elevation and comes out at 1800ft elevation. However, the tops of Grand Canyon are at 6900ft – 8500ft elevation. The top of Grand Canyon is higher than where the river enters the canyon by over 4,000 feet! Rivers do not flow uphill. Therefore, it is physically impossible for the Colorado River to have carved out the Grand Canyon.

http://www.truthingenesis.com/The_Grand_Canyo...
Google "tectonics".

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#133 Nov 1, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Google "tectonics".
He probably doesn't know how ... let me help --

" http://lmgtfy.com/... ;

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#134 Nov 1, 2012
Science Daily has a pretty good article on the latest thoughts on the Colorado Plateau and hoe the Grand Canyon was formed.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/...

the Wikipedia article is also worth a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon

But this video may be more accessible:



Flooding appears to have played a powerful role in the formation of the canyon, which occurred even as the contour of the land was in flux due to tectonics and volcanic activity, but those floods were many and in many different locations over several million years, which explains why there is actually a network of interconnected canyons rather than a single one. No single great flood was responsible for its formation, which could not possibly have occurred over the short span of time described in the Bible.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#135 Nov 1, 2012
Doctor Who Two wrote:
What about this?
Science has a problem with dates:
"
In 1944, as a ten year old boy,
Newton Anderson dropped a lump of coal and broke it in half in his basement and found that it contained this bell inside. The bituminous coal that was mined near his house in Upshur County West Virginia is supposed to be about 300 million years old! What is a brass bell with an iron clapper doing in coal ascribed to the Carboniferous Period? According to Norm Sharbaugh’s book Ammunition (which includes several “coal anecdotes”) the bell is an antediluvian artifact (made before the Genesis Flood). The Institute for Creation Research had the bell submitted to the lab at the University of Oklahoma. There a nuclear activation analysis revealed that the bell contains an unusual mix of metals, different from any known modern alloy production (including copper, zinc, tin, arsenic, iodine, and selenium)."
I see the details of the story has changed a bit but not the underlying argument.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC131.h...

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#136 Nov 1, 2012
Let's see how many more anecdotes Doctor Who Two can come up with from his "truthingenesis" that hasn't already been addressed here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#...
Mr Smartypants

Minneapolis, MN

#137 Nov 2, 2012
Doctor Who Two wrote:
So, the river comes in at 2800ft elevation and comes out at 1800ft elevation. However, the tops of Grand Canyon are at 6900ft – 8500ft elevation. The top of Grand Canyon is higher than where the river enters the canyon by over 4,000 feet! Rivers do not flow uphill. Therefore, it is physically impossible for the Colorado River to have carved out the Grand Canyon.
http://www.truthingenesis.com/The_Grand_Canyo...
No, you mental midget, it just means that the Colorado River has been carving the Grand Canyon for millions of years so that even the high end of the river managed to carve over 4000 feet of rock. What's worse than you being stupid is that you back up your idiotic assertion with even more stupid crap from a Cretinist website.

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 4 min Hooogle It 2,185
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Joe fortuna 232,699
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr MUQ2 23,170
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 7 hr _Bad Company 1,437
God' existence 11 hr polymath257 55
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 11 hr polymath257 112
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 12 hr Geezerjock 1
Evidence for God! 14 hr ChristineM 366
More from around the web