Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

[Rose_NoHo]

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
"But I do know the creation story in Genesis is nothing but a Bronze Age myth."
Facts backing up your statement would make you rich. You obvious have no facts to back up your claim of Genesis being a myth. Nobody does.

Let's see...
Plants growing before there is a sun.
Genesis, dismissed.

[Jupiter]

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
How did nothing explode to create everything?
How did rain falling on rocks create life?
How come some planets in our solar system are spinning the wrong way?

I don't know, any more than you know who created God. Nobody really knows how the whole world was created.

[Richardfs]

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
Ya right it was a slow explosion.
......

You obviously have a problem with the English language so I will type very slowly:-

It was not an explosion.

Why do you incest on making a fool of yourself?

[Richardfs]

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
Getting upset? Good

How can I get upset with the mentally retarded? I only feel sorry for you. As the human race advances in knowledge you will only get left further and further behind. You are are obsolete as the ideas in your precious bibull.

[madscot]

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
Yup, about 200 grains of lead to the head.

Reported for threat of violence

[Aliroger1]

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
Felt the need to lie did ya?
"A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.1 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize."
So because chimps and banana trees are about 50% the same DNA does this make chimps cannibals or humans for that matter?

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/06...

LANGOLIERS, CONGRATULATIONS!!! You have cited research to support your claim that I am wrong and you are right in that I claimed a 99% concordance and you claim it is somewhere between 50 and 95%--your proof says 95%. However, your proof is entirely, totally and completely based on research WHICH TAKES IT AS GIVEN THAT EVOLUTION OCCURRED!!! CONGRATULATIONS!!! You are now part of the camp which sees evolution as a theory which informs your search for proof!!

The Socratic worked, again!!!

[madscot]

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
Felt the need to lie did ya?
"A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.1 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize."
So because chimps and banana trees are about 50% the same DNA does this make chimps cannibals or humans for that matter?

A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.1 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize.

The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v...

[MUQ]

Aliroger1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Muck, you miss the point. A very tiny mutation or adaptation can have major consequences. Nice huh! I knew you would get it!!! I am such a good teacher. You live amongst swine there in the House of Pigs of Saud.

And you live amongst apes, and ape like creatures. Some primates might be.

[MUQ]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Since there is no evidence at all for your god's existence, there is no reason to believe he does. Doesn't matter what I'd rather believe.

Yeah, there is no evidence of any Creator. The whole universe was created by Newton / Darwin / Einstein and a few others.

Did you find a single needle that just came "by itself"?

How dumb people get, when thinking about Big issues.

[madscot]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, there is no evidence of any Creator. The whole universe was created by Newton / Darwin / Einstein and a few others.
Did you find a single needle that just came "by itself"?
How dumb people get, when thinking about Big issues.

You clearly need to learn the difference between a needle and the universe.

[Langoliers]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>LOL.
You can't use the Buy-bull as evidence for god's existence! That's like saying Star Trek episodes are evidence that Vulcans exist.

This buy-bull is that a book on atheism?

Posted earlier by derek4

The Atheist's Bible: An Illustrious Collection of Irreverent Thoughts [Hardcover]
Joan Konner (Author)
3.6 out of 5 stars See all reviews (29 customer reviews)

List Price:$16.99
Price:$11.55 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
Deal Price:
You Save:$5.44 (32%)

Only 4 left in stock (more on the way).
http://www.amazon.com/The-Atheists-Bible-Illu...

[Wow – only 4 left – MAN – those atheists love their bibles!!!- get your copy now before they run out!!!!]

[Langoliers]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>Say "Buy-bull" out loud.

This "Buy-bull" is this a book on evolution?

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.

continued:

“... 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

[Langoliers]

Reason Personified wrote:

<quoted text>I was a Christain for longer than I have been atheist.

Living it, studying it and being born into it, made sure that I know what I am talking about. Three decades of reading and studying the bible, was enough. I could no longer deny the contradictions, I could not pretend that any of it could be the words of a perfect, loving or all powerful god.

You obviously don't know it very well at all. Those who know it use it, to thier own advantage. Those who do not know it are used, and manipulated into not seeing what is in it.

"I was a Christain for longer than I have been atheist."

Well that will certainly change now won't it?

[Langoliers]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>Let's see...
Plants growing before there is a sun.
Genesis, dismissed.

You can't grasp that God can do anything he wishes. Remember day
one? Let there be light? He didn't need the sun now did he?

There could be liquid water on a moon around Saturn. That water would not be a liquid because of the heat of from the sun. There are other sources for everything.

[Langoliers]

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>I don't know, any more than you know who created God. Nobody really knows how the whole world was created.

No one created God. He is the one and only. By him being outside of time you can't define what before or after means

[Langoliers]

Richardfs wrote:

<quoted text>You obviously have a problem with the English language so I will type very slowly:-

It was not an explosion.

Why do you incest on making a fool of yourself?

Now why would you assume that I didn't understand you?

But what about all those science web sites claiming it was the bang of all bangs?

Ok let's look at it the way you say, a
S L O W explosion.

the big bang. Where nothing exploded and created everything. Or as some now are changing it up to sound less ridicules claim that when a singular (that contained all matter in the cosmos and was no bigger then this period .) exploded S L O W L Y creating everything.

How could it expand slowly, gravity would pull it back together FAST would it not? How could a slow expansion cause enough heat to start fusion?

Ya this explanation sounds way more plausible. One other thing. What made it explode?

It had been sitting there for most of an entirety then just on a whim it thought
"Hey let's try something different"?

I don't want to sound skeptical but you buy this?

Yes sir, you folks really have something to hang your hat on with that one.

[Langoliers]

Richardfs wrote:

<quoted text>How can I get upset with the mentally retarded? I only feel sorry for you. As the human race advances in knowledge you will only get left further and further behind. You are are obsolete as the ideas in your precious bibull.

What is this "bibull"? Is it a book on how to be a atheist troll?

[Langoliers]

madscot wrote:

<quoted text>Reported for threat of violence

Oh no!

[Langoliers]

Aliroger1 wrote:

<quoted text> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/06...

LANGOLIERS, CONGRATULATIONS!!! You have cited research to support your claim that I am wrong and you are right in that I claimed a 99% concordance and you claim it is somewhere between 50 and 95%--your proof says 95%. However, your proof is entirely, totally and completely based on research WHICH TAKES IT AS GIVEN THAT EVOLUTION OCCURRED!!! CONGRATULATIONS!!! You are now part of the camp which sees evolution as a theory which informs your search for proof!!

The Socratic worked, again!!!

I'm so glad I made you happy.

[Langoliers]

madscot wrote:

<quoted text>A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.1 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize.

The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v...

Oh I better not talk to you or I'll get reported. LOL

Did that posting scare you? I'm so sorry it was a joke in reference to his metal comment. Lead is a metal you know?

I'm really not too dangers you know.