Atheists on the march in America

[Rose_NoHo]

John wrote:

Drew you are embarassing yourself. Please continue.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
Fun fact of the day- for every 1 job created in the Obama administration 75 went on food stamps.

Why do con dumbs just randomly insert Obama's name into conversations?

[postscript]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually we have a very complete fossil record now.
If you understood anything about the conditions it takes to fossilize something, you'd understand how amazing it is that we have found as many fossils as we have.
Biological evolution is the most research areas of science worldwide and has been for over 150 years now. The vast amounts of evidence we have amassed and the overwhelming predictive benefit we have by the use of this theory, all continue to underscore and strengthen the overall confidence scientists in all Earth sciences disciplines have in the biological evolution.
You might want to read some layman level explinations from HidingFromYou to help with your understanding --
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
Or Polymath --
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;

Science has suppositions which translated means "nada". You might want to invest in a spell checker.

[postscript]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
That doesn't prove squat.(And that's assuming what they are saying is accurate.) Mutations are random, so some species may not have changed at all, or at least to the point you can tell just by looking.

Nothing is random. The problem with science's version of the origin of the universe is this: Like religion, it assumes genesis was an isolated event. It wasn't. Consciousness out of which all else springs forms all systems simultaneously. In other words, the universe is always being created.

[Givemeliberty]

Because it was Jesus who did it right?

Rotflmfao!

postscript wrote:

<quoted text>
Nothing is random. The problem with science's version of the origin of the universe is this: Like religion, it assumes genesis was an isolated event. It wasn't. Consciousness out of which all else springs forms all systems simultaneously. In other words, the universe is always being created.

[nanoanomaly]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Good article with clear precise proof backing up your claims. Sadly man people like Nan don't want to hear anything different than what their preacher says in church. If your information doesn't include Jesus magicked everything into existence she won't be satisfied.
One must remember she is the same idiot who claimed to have a horrible disease that will take her life in less than a year and has no cure but then a few posts later says, nope I am already cured!
Lmfao! You just gotta shake your head at these creationist apologetic morons man. Until they open their eyes and are willing to honestly look at real science they are stuck in sheep mode, bleating all the way home.
<quoted text>

It's too bad that you have to lie to try and sound intelligent.

[nanoanomaly]

Drew Smith wrote:

Why? Don't you judge something to be good if you find it beneficial to your life? Why does "purpose" have anything to do with it?
<quoted text>
Imagine that, you figured out that "good" and "bad" are relative to *specific* purposes. Not to some overarching objective "purpose of life" for everyone.
<quoted text>
I don't see a "universe from nothing". So your question is wrong from the beginning.

Bullshyt. A couple years ago you were espousing Krauss's theory of a universe from nothing....then somebody brought up the fact that virtual particles do not "poof" into existence from "nothing". You are about as relevant as a smoke ring in a snowstorm.

[Drew Smith]

nanoanomaly wrote:

A couple years ago you were espousing Krauss's theory of a universe from nothing

Prove it.

[polymath257]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Why wouldn't there be large gaps in the fossils we have discovered? Think we have discovered every fossil there is? Think every animal who has died has been fossilized?

Even more so, does every dead animal (or plant, fungus, etc) have an equal likelihood of becoming a fossil? Is the rate of fossilization such that we would expect a continuous record? Do the 'gaps' match what we know about fossilization in general and the likelihood of fossilization in various environments? Are species that live in environments that we would predict to higher rates of fossilization better represented in the record?

[Givemeliberty]

Says the retard who posted she had less than a year to live from a horrible disease and then poof she's all cured now.

Lmfao!

Hey post those so called atheist doctrines half wit! Go ahead it's probably in your apologetic book. Hurry up now or accept defeat yet again.

We so humiliate you and it's sad you lack the IQ to see it.

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>It's too bad that you have to lie to try and sound intelligent.

[Givemeliberty]

She talks so much Bullsht she can't keep up with it.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Prove it.

[postscript]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Why wouldn't there be large gaps in the fossils we have discovered? Think we have discovered every fossil there is? Think every animal who has died has been fossilized?

Not every critter, just the ones that would make science's evolutionary fairy tale true.

[postscript]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Because it was Jesus who did it right?
Rotflmfao!
<quoted text>

Just out of curiosity, do your parents have tails?

[Drew Smith]

postscript wrote:

Not every critter, just the ones that would make science's evolutionary fairy tale true.

Quite enough fossils have been found that common ancestry is fully supported by the fossil record:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.h...

[postscript]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Quite enough fossils have been found that common ancestry is fully supported by the fossil record:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.h...

Common ancestry? You mean like the fish Coelacanth for example, supposedly extinct 70 million years ago and presented by evolutionists as a "transitional form" between marine and land creatures? It was found alive and well in 1939 near Madagascar, and has been caught about 50 times since? LOL!

There is no reason to believe that fish were radically different eons ago from what they are now. To suggest that they lived long enough in shallow water to turn gills into lungs is absurd hence the lack of transitional forms. Fish are fish. It was true then and it's true now.

[Lil Ticked]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>It's too bad that you have to lie to try and sound intelligent.

retard didn't even read it.

[Givemeliberty]

Lmfao after all the times I have factually crushed you? Sigh you make such a jackass out of yourself.

But at least you stopped pretending to be an agnostic. Sheesh that was as convincing as Dave's claim to be a deist!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>retard didn't even read it.

[Givemeliberty]

Jesus waved around his magical fish billions of years ago and made the universe right?

Google up evolution human tailbone before you humiliate yourself further.

You're welcome half wit.

postscript wrote:

<quoted text>
Just out of curiosity, do your parents have tails?

[nanoanomaly]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Prove it.

Why should I be expected to prove anything to you if scientists don't have to? I remember what you spewed, that's good enough for me.

[Lil Ticked]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Lmfao after all the times I have factually crushed you? Sigh you make such a jackass out of yourself.
But at least you stopped pretending to be an agnostic. Sheesh that was as convincing as Dave's claim to be a deist!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!
<quoted text>

Name one, missy.

[Givemeliberty]

You'd like scientists better if they would just say Jesus made everything right half wit?

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>Why should I be expected to prove anything to you if scientists don't have to? I remember what you spewed, that's good enough for me.