atheists

[AvalonXQ]

Can I have a shovel? Maybe one of those tower-shaped buckets for making a castle?

 

[WarChild]

This is 100% garbage. Forgiveness is not a license to sin as much as you want, and Christianity certainly doesn't teach such nonsense.



If you wish to stand by those two statements, then you would have to agree that creation and evolution are both equally plausable ideas. So, I'll give you the opportunity to accept or reject that statement. However, do note that if you reject, then you've just contradicted yourself. So then, do you accept that both creation and evolution are equally plausable ideas for explaining our origins?

I agree 100 percent with you. But I'm happy to admit that I DON'T KNOW how it all began. But I'm not comfortable with the notion that because I don't know, I therefore must believe its supernatural.

I lean towards the evolution side more because its a theory that's demonstrable. I'm not saying its true, or 100 percent fact.. far from it. I'm saying it seems the most likely explanation based on what we can observe.

Whereas your position is that you believe you KNOW all the answers, but there is no observable evidence whatsoever to back this up.

Plus, Even if there was a creator.. Who's to say this creator is the god you believe in? It maybe someone else entirely.

 

[Cycel]

While I believe it is true that life arose naturally on Earth and was not derived from 'special creation', I don't think there are as yet any solid ideas about how this happened.

such blind faith; amazing!!!!!!!!!!!

your blind faith is in believing that the evidence for evolutism actually exists...

Here’s the thing CoooCaw, I wasn’t talking about evolution in that first post where you accused me of having “such blind faith ...!!!!!!!!!!!” So what were you going on about? Did you misunderstand what I was saying?

 

[Cycel]

there is zero evidence to support the insane dogma of evolutionism

I defy you to provide me one piece of evidence;

any response you give will involve taking observable phenomena and forcing an evolutionary interpretation onto it

It looks like you're saying you are going to deny any evidence presented.

CoooCaw, we talked before about me presenting evidence of an intermediate form, but I said I needed you to answer a question first. I don't think you gave a response. I will post my question again:

I need to ask you something CoooCaw before we can talk about missing links, or more properly intermediate forms. In the past I have had this same discussion with other anti-evolutionists, but run into something of a roadblock. Every time I present an intermediate form the person I am debating argues that my example is simply another kind of animal formed by special creation, not a missing link at all. Before we begin I will need you to tell me how you are going to recognize an intermediate form when you see one. How will you know when what I am presenting you with is an actual intermediate evolutionary stage and not an act of special creation?

Could you answer this please?

 

[megaman125]

More arrogance; more ascribing me with positions I have not taken.

Perhaps you should be a little faster to listen, megaman125, and a little slower to judge. I myself already acknowledged my mistake in not waiting long enough for CoooCaw to respond. The more you jump all over me, the less your righteousness holds up.

Actually, I was waiting to listen to you. I asked you questions, honest questions, with question marks and all. The only part where I was judging you was for your arrogance from the first time you claimed CooCaw was intentionally avoiding this conversation. So no, it's not about "my righteousness," I would like you to actually answer those questions instead of evading them.

 

[megaman125]

I agree 100 percent with you. But I'm happy to admit that I DON'T KNOW how it all began. But I'm not comfortable with the notion that because I don't know, I therefore must believe its supernatural.

Sure, that's understandable. And likewise, I'm not comfortable with the notion that becuase I don't know, I therefore must believe it's all coincidence until it's absolutely, 100% proven, demonstratable, peer reviewed, and all that other stuff, says otherwise.

I lean towards the evolution side more because its a theory that's demonstrable. I'm not saying its true, or 100 percent fact.. far from it. I'm saying it seems the most likely explanation based on what we can observe.

There is nothing that is or has ever been demonstratable about the claims of events from billions of years ago from the evolution side. I'll give you one example. According to the evolution myth, the first single living cell, which reproduced asexually, eventually had to split off into an evolutionary line and reproduce sexually. There is zero evidence that this happened in the past, and there is absolutely no experiement that demonstrates such an evolutionary transition is even possible.

Whereas your position is that you believe you KNOW all the answers, but there is no observable evidence whatsoever to back this up.

Atheists and evolutionists tend to believe they KNOW all the answers, until they're called out on it, then they just backpeddle like dishonest politicians (sorry for comparing you to politicans, it's just the best analogy that came to mind at the moment).

Plus, Even if there was a creator.. Who's to say this creator is the god you believe in? It maybe someone else entirely.

Well, that involves a person who is genuinely curious to actually do research into different religions, instead of just saying, "Oh, there's so many religions, therefore I'll just throw my hands up in the air and say they're all false because there's many of them."

Or you could go with the notion that there is a god that exists and created the universe, but never interacts with us or communicates with us. This however relies on the assumption that this god would create all this life and then never communicates or tried to communicate with us in any way shape or form, and if you think about it, that position isn't very logical.

 

[megaman125]

Actually, I was waiting to listen to you. I asked you questions, honest questions, with question marks and all. The only part where I was judging you was for your arrogance from the first time you claimed CooCaw was intentionally avoiding this conversation. So no, it's not about "my righteousness," I would like you to actually answer those questions instead of evading them.

Oh, and one other thing I wanted to add, you're free to answer those questions however you want, and I was not forcing you into any particular answer, even if you feel that I was.

 

[Starcrash]

there is zero evidence to support the insane dogma of evolutionism

I defy you to provide me one piece of evidence;

any response you give will involve taking observable phenomena and forcing an evolutionary interpretation onto it

I cited it with a link... here it yet another link to the same experiment. Here are more observations of evolution currently happening. I already described one case of evolution that I have observed -- babies being born thanks to C-sections that wouldn't have been born before this medical technology, and the subsequent change in the human population now that these genes can get passed on. Here are some other observations of evolution in modern man that others have made. It has been well-observed that elephants are being born with shorter tusks due to the ivory hunters making elephants with large tusks unfit for survival. The list goes on and on...

If you look back at my last post, you'll notice that I challenged you to present evidence of creationism. Why didn't you? I presented evidence of evolution, both back then and now. While you think I'm "forcing an evolutionary interpretation onto it", I believe that you force a creationist interpretation onto your observations. We can deny each other's evidence based on nothing but bias for any argument, but evolution doesn't have to be true for atheism to still be true, so I don't have the motive that you think I do to believe in its validity.

 

[Josh321]

well all i can say is.. the only way anyone can know what is real is by faith, faith to accept that God died for our sins when we have that true genuine faith the truth shall set you free, there is no theory about anything only way to know if it's the truth is true faith, the seen cannot see the unseen but we must have faith to believe that it is there, if anyone would like a little evidence of what is real i can show you briefly if you want i'm sure you would take it into consideration

 

[Starcrash]

This is 100% garbage. Forgiveness is not a license to sin as much as you want, and Christianity certainly doesn't teach such nonsense.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "license to sin". Does sinning get you into hell? Most Christians believe that salvation means a heavenly future, no matter how much sin is committed. Therefore, salvation is a "license to sin" in the sense that sinning has no bearing on eternal consequences. If you want to discuss earthly consequences, then atheists no longer have the "license to sin" that has been ascribed to us because it's only natural that we'd suffer these same consequences. So my point (still valid) is that atheists are not atheists because they want the freedom to sin... our freedom is the same as a Christian's freedom, so becoming a Christian wouldn't give us any benefit in that way.

I agree with you that Christianity "doesn't teach such nonsense", but many Christians do teach nonsense about what atheism is. I wish you guys would bother to learn about atheism and stop proliferating these myths. There are similar myths that many atheists believe about Christians (relating to IQ, ability to reason, acceptance of the Old Testament commandments, etc.) that I'm sure you'd like atheists to be educated about. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

[Starcrash]

well all i can say is.. the only way anyone can know what is real is by faith, faith to accept that God died for our sins when we have that true genuine faith the truth shall set you free, there is no theory about anything only way to know if it's the truth is true faith, the seen cannot see the unseen but we must have faith to believe that it is there, if anyone would like a little evidence of what is real i can show you briefly if you want i'm sure you would take it into consideration

No... not only is faith not "the only way to know what is real", but it isn't even a way. People can have faith in literally anything, whether or not it is true. You know that there are billions of people with faith in "false" religions, and the stronger their faith is, the further they get from the truth (in your point of view and mine). Evidence is a good way to know what is real, and the scientific method is a great way to separate objective evidence from superstition.

 

[WarChild]

Sure, that's understandable. And likewise, I'm not comfortable with the notion that becuase I don't know, I therefore must believe it's all coincidence until it's absolutely, 100% proven, demonstratable, peer reviewed, and all that other stuff, says otherwise.



There is nothing that is or has ever been demonstratable about the claims of events from billions of years ago from the evolution side. I'll give you one example. According to the evolution myth, the first single living cell, which reproduced asexually, eventually had to split off into an evolutionary line and reproduce sexually. There is zero evidence that this happened in the past, and there is absolutely no experiement that demonstrates such an evolutionary transition is even possible.



Atheists and evolutionists tend to believe they KNOW all the answers, until they're called out on it, then they just backpeddle like dishonest politicians (sorry for comparing you to politicans, it's just the best analogy that came to mind at the moment).



Well, that involves a person who is genuinely curious to actually do research into different religions, instead of just saying, "Oh, there's so many religions, therefore I'll just throw my hands up in the air and say they're all false because there's many of them."

Or you could go with the notion that there is a god that exists and created the universe, but never interacts with us or communicates with us. This however relies on the assumption that this god would create all this life and then never communicates or tried to communicate with us in any way shape or form, and if you think about it, that position isn't very logical.

I wouldn't call it back peddling. Because we aren't bound by a framework, if we are wrong then so be it. We just base our opinions on whatever information is available at the time. And if new information arises then we are happy to say that we were wrong and then look at the new evidence.

I'm sure if evidence of god came along then every atheist would say they were wrong but would now look at this new evidence.

Whereas your belief system doesn't allow for this. Any 'evidence' is dismissed because it conflicts with your faith.

It's like being on a Jury. There May be a 100 signs that a person is innocent an there may be evidence to suggest he is innocent, but just because you think he looks guilty.. Your happy to dismiss the evidence because it goes against what you personally believe.

 

[hootowl]

Hi Need 2 know

You have actually brought up some very good points if your post is read carefully

Atheists do not believe in either God or Satan neither has helped me in anyway I must admit lol

I actually believe it or not do have strict beliefs. But not in God or Satan as such or any other Deities. I have studied other religions because you cannot say you do not believe in something unless you first try to find out about it.

People do say such things as "For Gods sake" and you know some of the others. I really think it is just a figure of speech and they are not really thinking of any God when they say it. People do take offence as they say it is blasphemy.

I myself do have a problem with people doing what they wish then think all they have to do is repent and it is all over.
It is not so a person has to earn their way in deeds etc it is a long climb up and can involve punishment depending on what has been done. IE: A serial killer about to be hung usually repents, the death is quick no atonement and they get away with it. Please do not say they have taken the killers life, it is preferable to the rest of your life behind bars. It is only the initial scare of maybe the pain or the unknown that scares them. That is my belief anyway.

I do have a problem with those that think they can kill in the name of some deity any deity because a lot of this is done against people who do not believe in their particular God. This is wrong everybody is entitled to whatever they wish to believe
The Christians do this too. Actually more battles are caused through religion then anything else. In the Christian Religion you have Christians fighting each other.

In a true world everybody should be accountable for what they do good or bad and actually they are. But people do not wish to recognize this. They prefer to think they have protection from above and after repenting are then free.

Actually born again means to change your ways become a whole new person. People seem to think it just means a blind acceptance of God. Not so.

We all have good and bad points but weaknesses in our characteristics or the strengths bring them out, plus our genetics and what we have witnessed on our road through life also peer pressure all gather to make us good or bad.
Mental condition plays a big part too in our perception of what action we take in different situations.

I do believe that religion has no moral value read the old testament what they did then is called incest now but ok for them when it suited.
It is changed around to suit themselves. Actually the bible is a blood thirsty book.
Also some the achievements mentioned in the bible cannot be done so we call them miracles easy way out of an explanation of something that cannot be explained.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Actually, I was waiting to listen to you. I asked you questions, honest questions, with question marks and all.

Have you stopped beating your wife? Do you still worship Satan?

Questions which assumes facts not in evidence are not "honest questions." Ascribing me with positions I have not taken is not honest; it's quite dishonest. And it shows precisely the arrogance you have repeatedly accused me of.

Do you have a direct response to the evidence that I presented?

 

[AvalonXQ]

There is nothing that is or has ever been demonstratable about the claims of events from billions of years ago from the evolution side. I'll give you one example. According to the evolution myth, the first single living cell, which reproduced asexually, eventually had to split off into an evolutionary line and reproduce sexually. There is zero evidence that this happened in the past, and there is absolutely no experiement that demonstrates such an evolutionary transition is even possible.

That's what you say. Here's what the evidence says:

In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1200 million years ago in the Proterozoic Eon. All sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms derive from a common ancestor which was a single celled species.

Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You believe there's no evidence of this, so let me ask you - what evidence would you expect to find for this claim, and where have you looked to see if this evidence has been found or not?

 

[megaman125]

That's what you say. Here's what the evidence says:


Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You believe there's no evidence of this, so let me ask you - what evidence would you expect to find for this claim, and where have you looked to see if this evidence has been found or not?

That is not the evidence I asked for. Let's take a look at what I said again, because I described exactly the type of evidence I'm looking for.

According to the evolution myth, the first single living cell, which reproduced asexually, eventually had to split off into an evolutionary line and reproduce sexually. There is zero evidence that this happened in the past, and there is absolutely no experiement that demonstrates such an evolutionary transition is even possible.

If an asexual reproducing organism can evolve into a sexual reproducing organism (aka, if these evolution claims were true), then you should be able to DEMONSTRATE this transition from asexual to sexual reproduction. Here, we can even set it up as a scientific experiement.

Here's the hypothesis: A purely asexual organism can evolve into an organism that's relies purely on sexual reproduction.

Now show me the EXPERIEMENT that validates this hypothesis, because after all, you're clammoring that evolution is testible and demonstratable.

 

[megaman125]

Have you stopped beating your wife? Do you still worship Satan?

Questions which assumes facts not in evidence are not "honest questions." Ascribing me with positions I have not taken is not honest; it's quite dishonest. And it shows precisely the arrogance you have repeatedly accused me of.

Do you have a direct response to the evidence that I presented?

Oh really? What facts did I assume in those questions that aren't actually facts? Let's take a look at those questions again.

So you believe God created the universe then?

That's a simple yes or no question that doesn't assume any fact other than you being a Christian, which you claimed you're a Christian so I don't why you have a problem with me asking you a question that assumes what you claimed.

And is that why you jumped all over CooCaw for not responding immediately to the so called "undeniable proof" that the billions of years ago claims of evolution are right and the Bible is wrong?

jumped all over CooCaw - You actually did that. This is not something that was assumed, that's an actual fact.

billions of years ago claims of evolution are right and the Bible is wrong - This part of the question isn't assuming anything. Rather, it's based off of your insistence to fight against Christians to defend a purely anti-Christian doctrine rather than standing on the side you should be standing. I guess this question does assume the same thing that the first one does, in that my question assumes that your claim of being a Christian is correct.

So do you want me to appologize for asking questions that assume you're a Christian like you claimed to be? No seriously, I don't see why you have a problem with that at all.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'm no longer interested in what megaman125 has to say.

I am interested in CoooCaw's response to the evidence presented yesterday. We'll see what he has to say when he returns.

 

[megaman125]

Ah, so I see that you:

A. Can't provide adequate evidence that follows the scientific method for evolution when asked for it. Perhaps another evolutionist can provide what I seek? (then again, out of all the evolutionists I've ever talked with, none have been able to provide it)

B. You continue to evade questions that should be rather basic for someone who claims to be Christian. Draw whatever conclusions you want off of that evasiveness.

C. You evaded yet another question. You're trying to call me out on assuming facts that aren't really facts. I asked you, "What facts did I assume in those questions that aren't actually facts?" to which you also refuse to answer. Hmm...

 

[CoooCaw]

you are the one begging the question

you play this mental game with imagining a morphing process

simply, the Bible teaches us that God created discrete kinds of things;

any one example is EITHER ONE THING OR ELSE THE OTHER THING

noW YOU TELL ME, WHAT SHOULD I EXPECT, IF YOU SHOW ME SOMETHING WILL IT BE
1 ONE KIND
2 ANOTHER KIND
3 BOTH KINDS
4 NEITHER KIND

time for you to stop sniping and to go out on a limb yourself

It looks like you're saying you are going to deny any evidence presented.

CoooCaw, we talked before about me presenting evidence of an intermediate form, but I said I needed you to answer a question first. I don't think you gave a response. I will post my question again:

I need to ask you something CoooCaw before we can talk about missing links, or more properly intermediate forms. In the past I have had this same discussion with other anti-evolutionists, but run into something of a roadblock. Every time I present an intermediate form the person I am debating argues that my example is simply another kind of animal formed by special creation, not a missing link at all. Before we begin I will need you to tell me how you are going to recognize an intermediate form when you see one. How will you know when what I am presenting you with is an actual intermediate evolutionary stage and not an act of special creation?

Could you answer this please?