Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#133 Oct 25, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
The little marionette it trying to build some support for his religion while lying about others! What's new? Lies from an atheist real shocker.
What do you call something that comes back from the dead?

A zombie.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#134 Oct 25, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Same here I don't believe in magic either. But you do believe that either an animal produced a plant or the other way around! Ya that not magic. LOL
DOLT
Of course you believe in magic.

Your idea of creation has everything to do with magic.

Just think of it as the abracadabra method of creation.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#135 Oct 25, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you believe in magic.
Your idea of creation has everything to do with magic.
Just think of it as the abracadabra method of creation.
yh god said ooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmm and everything was created, just like that! Wow, I love magic and santa claus!!:) do u believe in santa?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#136 Oct 25, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely, science doesn't put it down to magic either.
Yeah, but who made science? Where did it come from? I bet you don't know! lol i'm pulling your leg don't get angry!! chilll!!!!!!:)

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#137 Oct 25, 2012
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
yh god said ooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmm and everything was created, just like that! Wow, I love magic and santa claus!!:) do u believe in santa?
Santa?

He's a fable. Just like the many gods that humankind worships, he belongs in the ranks of the myths and legends.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#138 Oct 25, 2012
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, but who made science? Where did it come from? I bet you don't know! lol i'm pulling your leg don't get angry!! chilll!!!!!!:)
The scientific method is what people look to for real and tangible explanations.

The religious method (doesn't really matter which religion - they're all superstitious mumbo jumbo) is for those who like their lives ruled by ancient myth and legend.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#139 Oct 25, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientific method is what people look to for real and tangible explanations.
The religious method (doesn't really matter which religion - they're all superstitious mumbo jumbo) is for those who like their lives ruled by ancient myth and legend.
yh i like it that way, but why u got problem with me? why is me believing in santa upsetting u??
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#140 Oct 25, 2012
redneck wrote:
<quoted text>Look up 'myth'. God is a myth.
Look up? Yes I see the heavens

Myth
Noun
1) evolution.
2) age of the earth is 4.6 BILLION years old.
3) age of the universe is 13 BILLION years old.
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#141 Oct 25, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Of course you believe in magic.

Your idea of creation has everything to do with magic.

Just think of it as the abracadabra method of creation.
No, God does not use magic. He uses his spoken word.
He spoke into existence everything.

Magic:
Noun
1) The art of producing illusions by sleight of hand.
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#142 Oct 25, 2012
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, but who made science? Where did it come from? I bet you don't know! lol i'm pulling your leg don't get angry!! chilll!!!!!!:)
I like how it was stated on another thread, it went something like this.

God laid everything out for science.
Scientist are playing in Gods sand box and every time they find one of Gods toys they exclaim "ah ha proof that God doesn't exist"

LOL
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#143 Oct 25, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Santa?

He's a fable. Just like the many gods that humankind worships, he belongs in the ranks of the myths and legends.
That is your believe!
Your religion!

Posted earlier by derek4

Challenging Darwin's Myths

The essence of Darwin's theory is that all living creatures descended from a single anscestor. All the plants, animals, and other organisms that exist today are products of random mutation and natural selection—or survival of the fittest.

According to Darwin, nature acts like a breeder, carefully scrutinizing every organism. As useful new traits appear, they are preserved and passed on to the next generation. Harmful traits are eliminated. Although each individual change is relatively small, these changes eventually accumulate until organisms develop new limbs, organs, or other parts. Given enough time, organisms may change so radically that they bear almost no resemblance to their original ancsestor.

Most importantly, all this happens without any purposeful input—no Creator, no Intelligent Designer. In Darwin's view, chance and nature are all you need.

This all sounds very elegant and plausible. Problem is, it's never been supported by any convincing data.

For example, consider the fossil evidence. If Darwinism were true, the fossil evidence should show lots of gradual change, with one species slowly grading into the next. In fact, it should be hard to tell where one species ends and another begins. But that's not what we find.

As Darwin himself pointed out in his book, The Origin of Species:

...The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth,[must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Darwin, of course, attributed this problem to the imperfection of the fossil evidence, and the youthful state of paleontology. As the discipline matured, and as scientists found more fossils, the gaps would slowly start to fill.

“... Darwinism is ultimately based as much on philosophical assumptions as on scientific evidence.

This admission, which took place at a national meeting of country's largest science society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, scandalized the Darwinist community, which likes to portray evolution as an indisputable fact. It was all the more scandalous because the speaker had specifically been invited to the meeting to denounce Johnson.

So things are slowly beginning to change. Creationists are still far from winning, but things are getting better. As Johnson points out, creationist arguments are getting more sophisticated, while most Darwinists are still responding with cliches. Thus, it's now the creationists who come across as asking the hard questions, and demanding fair debate.

But ultimately, says Johnson, it's not the debates or the arguments that will win the day.

"It's reality that's doing it. It's just the way the world is. And sooner or later, scientists will have to acknowledge that fact."

http://www.arn.org/docs/dardoc1.htm

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#145 Oct 25, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I like how it was stated on another thread, it went something like this.
God laid everything out for science.
Scientist are playing in Gods sand box and every time they find one of Gods toys they exclaim "ah ha proof that God doesn't exist"
LOL
heheheheheheeeeeeee! that's a nice story!

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#146 Oct 26, 2012
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
yh i like it that way, but why u got problem with me? why is me believing in santa upsetting u??
I've got no problem with whatever you believe in (as long as it's legal)

You think I'm upset lover what you believe?

Seems to me that you have an over-inflated opinion of yourself as I couldn't really care less.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#147 Oct 26, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
No, God does not use magic. He uses his spoken word.
He spoke into existence everything.
Magic:
Noun
1) The art of producing illusions by sleight of hand.
How apt that you use the word "illusions" in such close proximity to the word "god".

No doubt you're channelling some hidden vein of unbelief deep within your psyche.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#148 Oct 26, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I like how it was stated on another thread, it went something like this.
God laid everything out for science.
Scientist are playing in Gods sand box and every time they find one of Gods toys they exclaim "ah ha proof that God doesn't exist"
LOL
Ah yes.

Such a wonderful god.

He created smallpox.

Then he ensured millions of men, women, children and babies died painful deaths over tens of thousands of years before letting humanity find a cure.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#149 Oct 26, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
That is your believe!
Your religion!
Posted earlier by derek4
Challenging Darwin's Myths
The essence of Darwin's theory is that all living creatures descended from a single anscestor. All the plants, animals, and other organisms that exist today are products of random mutation and natural selection—or survival of the fittest.
According to Darwin, nature acts like a breeder, carefully scrutinizing every organism. As useful new traits appear, they are preserved and passed on to the next generation. Harmful traits are eliminated. Although each individual change is relatively small, these changes eventually accumulate until organisms develop new limbs, organs, or other parts. Given enough time, organisms may change so radically that they bear almost no resemblance to their original ancsestor.
Most importantly, all this happens without any purposeful input—no Creator, no Intelligent Designer. In Darwin's view, chance and nature are all you need.
This all sounds very elegant and plausible. Problem is, it's never been supported by any convincing data.
For example, consider the fossil evidence. If Darwinism were true, the fossil evidence should show lots of gradual change, with one species slowly grading into the next. In fact, it should be hard to tell where one species ends and another begins. But that's not what we find.
As Darwin himself pointed out in his book, The Origin of Species:
...The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth,[must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Darwin, of course, attributed this problem to the imperfection of the fossil evidence, and the youthful state of paleontology. As the discipline matured, and as scientists found more fossils, the gaps would slowly start to fill.
“... Darwinism is ultimately based as much on philosophical assumptions as on scientific evidence.
This admission, which took place at a national meeting of country's largest science society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, scandalized the Darwinist community, which likes to portray evolution as an indisputable fact. It was all the more scandalous because the speaker had specifically been invited to the meeting to denounce Johnson.
So things are slowly beginning to change. Creationists are still far from winning, but things are getting better. As Johnson points out, creationist arguments are getting more sophisticated, while most Darwinists are still responding with cliches. Thus, it's now the creationists who come across as asking the hard questions, and demanding fair debate.
But ultimately, says Johnson, it's not the debates or the arguments that will win the day.
"It's reality that's doing it. It's just the way the world is. And sooner or later, scientists will have to acknowledge that fact."
http://www.arn.org/docs/dardoc1.htm
I looked at this

The article you refer to was written by someone called Mark Hartwig.

I checked his scientific credentials and his expertise is educational psychology in which he holds a PhD.

You must be pretty stupid to prefer his non-knowledge of evolution over the wealth of real knowledge belonging to the many evolutionary and molecular biologists, anatomists, geneticists, etc.

Your choosing Hartwig is a bit like choosing a plumber to rewire your house instead of an electrician.

Dumb,dumb,dumb.

Why doesn't this surprise me?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#150 Oct 26, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"The scientific method is what people look to for real and tangible explanations"
LOL
You've got to be kidding!
Real and tangible?
The Big Bang is real and tangible? Like man really knows 13 billions years ago nothing exploded and created everything. Real and tangible?
Evolution full of falsified evidence real and tangible?
Atheist who BELIEVE there is no God.
The puppet is a comedian.
Here are just a few things your religion has:

Dragons, unicorns, giants and cockatrices.

A talking snakes and donkeys.

A flat earth.

Bats that are birds and rabbits that chew the cud.

A divine recipe for shitcakes

Genetically altering goats by floating tree bark in water.

Men with milk in their breasts

Oh yes, let's not forget.... A ratio of 3:1 for Pi

Holy holy holy!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#151 Oct 26, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
I've got no problem with whatever you believe in (as long as it's legal)
You think I'm upset lover what you believe?
Seems to me that you have an over-inflated opinion of yourself as I couldn't really care less.
Upset LOVER? LOL. No I don't think that?

Noooooooooo! I didn't mean my belief. What I was trying to say is that why do you care if christians or other faiths believe in God?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#152 Oct 26, 2012
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
Upset LOVER? LOL. No I don't think that?
Noooooooooo! I didn't mean my belief. What I was trying to say is that why do you care if christians or other faiths believe in God?
I know you're new here but it's best to make allowances for people's typos. Otherwise people will start correcting any typos, spelling and grammatical errors you make.

Christians believe in one particular god and people of other faiths believe in other gods. They are different, you know.

But for the purpose of this post I'll stick to Christians as an example:

I don't care what Christians believe in but I do have a problem when they want government support for their commandments and prayers; when they want to substitute science with their particular creation myth and when they want their religious prejudices to be enacted in statutory legislation, etc.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#153 Oct 26, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Ah yes.

Such a wonderful god.

He created smallpox.

Then he ensured millions of men, women, children and babies died painful deaths over tens of thousands of years before letting humanity find a cure.
You prove your ignorance with every post.

Man brought sin and death into the world.
Isn't it nice that mankind was given the freedom of choice, and not made us as puppets of God? Man goofed up big time. God did not!

The universe is balanced there is good
And bad. Get use to it!

"He created smallpox.

Then he ensured millions of men, women, children and babies died painful deaths over tens of thousands of years before letting humanity find a cure"

Mankind picked this path God simply gave us the freedom of choice to do so.

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 7 min Aura Mytha 235,774
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr One way or another 16,864
The Consequences of Atheism 1 hr susanblange 810
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 4 hr Eagle 12 4,882
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 5 hr Thinking 1,662
What evidence make you believe in God/gods? 9 hr geezerjock 26
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 11 hr ChristineM 6,056
More from around the web