atheists

[Kerry]

How about this one recorded in the book of Daniel ( I will go get the verse if I must). That in the last days, people will be traveling to and fro and knowledge will increase. 100 years ago we were riding horses, traveling took months. Now we hop on a plane and arrive in hours. 100 years ago, space travel was not even thought of nor was the information highway nor smart phones in the last 20 years. It is exactly as it said, people are traveling to and fro and knowledge is increasing by leaps and bounds. When you purchase a phone in two weeks there is a newer, better model available. We are in the last days as predicted by the Word of God. Accept Jesus now, before it is to late. Amen.

 

[Starcrash]

Good avoidance, I am not a politician as your brother. Even though the bible does not give specifics, although it does concerning Jesus Christ which is undeniable and many other events as well. But, the events that it declares will happen years before it happened, did happen. Not only the bible backs it up but, history backs it up. The Egyptians recording a lot of it and Greece and Rome. Where is evolutions backup?

Actually, the bible does give specific prophecies that didn't come true. For instance, the book of Matthew points out that Micah 5:2 is a prophecy concerning Jesus' birth. However, did verses 5 and 6 come true? I don't seem to recall learning that Jesus conquered the Assyrians (now impossible, as they no longer exist). And what about Zechariah 9:9, also referenced in the gospels? Verse 10 claimed that he would rule from sea to sea. I don't recall that happening, either.

The "fulfillment of prophecies" is only undeniable to someone who refuses to even consider it. I've lectured you several times now on citing your sources, because I know that when you claim things like "history backs up" the life of Jesus that you're severely uneducated on what historians know about Jesus. The earliest source was written around 100 AD (not an eye-witness) and thought for good reasons to have been doctored by Christians.

I've already argued for "evolution's backup", as you call it, and yet again I have to remind you that evolution and atheism are unrelated. "Good avoidance" there of the topic at hand -- atheism.

 

[megaman125]

Megaman, this post of yours has been cut and pasted.

Indeed it was.

The entire document has been put together through quote mining, a very typical approach used by Creationists. The result of course is a group of quotes set in a very misleading context. Evolutionary biologists may not at all mean what they seem to be saying, but as misrepresentation is the goal of such efforts they are very often successful at twisting the truth.

Yes, the "it's all quote mining, therefore disregard it." If only atheists wouldn't call us out on that one liner when they quote mine the Bible to misrepresent it.

I don’t blame you Megaman, I see you as a victim in this. If you actually read Gould (and others) and not just the sound bites fed to you by those seeking to twist the truth, you would recognize the deception. I can point out the errors to you, but it is time consuming to track down all the original quotes to provide the proper context. Cutting and pasting takes moments, doing the foot work to provide the evidence for what I am telling you will probably take hours.

Indeed, the cut/paste was quick, which was the only reason I did it. I'd say don't bother wasting your time trying to dismantle it because it wouldn't convince me of evolution anyways.

Okay, I regret wasting my time on you. I obviously didn't "evade the subject"... I took a lot of time and effort to explain it as fully as I could. It took a "wall of text" because the explanation isn't easy. And it was a waste of time.

You did evade the subject. I asked for evidence following the scientific method to test the hypothesis that a purely asexual organism could evolve into a purely sexual reproducing organism, and you didn't even mention ANYTHING about the asexual to sexual transition. That is evading the subject.

You'll never understand because your belief depends on not understanding.

And there's the typical one-liner, just another dishonest attempt to brush off a completely valid exposure of one of the many holes in evolution. Just pretend the Christians rely on purposely not understanding so that you can still cling to your evolution after it's been challeneged.

It's as dumb as "They're evolutionists, therefore they're wrong", and almost as logically fallacious as "evolution is wrong, therefore creationism has been proven".

Well good thing I presented an actual arguement against evolution then. Still waiting for that evidence I asked for. Seems to me there's plenty of good reasons to not believe the claims evolutionists make about what supposedly happened billions of years ago.

 

[Starcrash]

How about this one recorded in the book of Daniel ( I will go get the verse if I must). That in the last days, people will be traveling to and fro and knowledge will increase.

That is your "specific prophecy"? People will travel to and fro? Knowledge will increase? When have these things ever been untrue?

When the Bubonic Plague hit Europe, it killed 1/3 of the population. For good reasons, many of Europe's Christian inhabitants thought they were living "in the last days". And it turns out that they weren't. The signs suggested by Jesus... "wars, rumors of wars, earthquakes, famines, 'troubles' "... are all so generic that anyone in any time period can apply them to their own. What good is a prophecy that can't be falsified?

 

[megaman125]

I've already argued for "evolution's backup", as you call it, and yet again I have to remind you that evolution and atheism are unrelated. "Good avoidance" there of the topic at hand -- atheism.

And there's the one-liner to throw evolution under the bus because it's obvious to everyone what a sinking ship it is, but yet still maintain the belief in evolution by changing the subject.

You talk about avoiding the topic at hand, atheism, when in the same post you talk about Bible prophecy. Unless you're about to tell me you're an atheist becuase of Bible prophecy, then you are also as off topic as Kerry.

 

[Starcrash]

You did evade the subject. I asked for evidence following the scientific method to test the hypothesis that a purely asexual organism could evolve into a purely sexual reproducing organism, and you didn't even mention ANYTHING about the asexual to sexual transition. That is evading the subject.

You asked for evolution in general in the specific post that I responded to, mentioning nothing about "purely asexual to purely sexual" evolution. Here's an article about amoebas, a form of life that shows the asexual/sexual line by reproducing in both ways. But I still think such information and argument is wasted on you. You're not seeking an answer but rather trying to find a question that can't be answered, and you're unlikely to land on one.

 

[Josh321]

Hello all i'm not too familiar with what argument is going on but i would just like to add, that the bible talks about we do the things contained in the law by nature, that is what born in sin mean, now a simple fact i know none of you will accept it but just keep it in your thoughts, if we are to do the things contained in the nature by law because we are born in the sin which means we will do everything that is against the will of God, the bible talks about we should not say the lord name in vain, if we take a look at this simple thing and look at the world what do we see, people who are muslims, atheist, agnostics, whatever they are can't help but do this and no one recognises this if something lets say annoying or painful happen to anyone they would say J*** C** i don't want to say it but you get what i'm going with say the lord name in the vain and they can't help but do it or say any other name or they would say HOLY **** whatever, i know this isn't much but atleast keep it in thoughts could get into more deep things if you like

 

[Kerry]

You will annul the fact that knowledge and travel has expanded exponentially in the past 100, 50, 20 years. You are talking more than 200 years ago. Dude, we were riding horses less than 100 years ago or did that leave a skid mark. This prophecy is being fulfilled in your face. 20 years ago, my dad had a cell phone that had a sling over his shoulder for the battery. where else in history could this be fulfilled? Very little changed from Daniels day till the early 1900's, knowledge increased very, very, very, very slowly. Now it is almost weekly. This is the last days.

 

[Kerry]

Be back in about 25 mins, nature calls or should I do like my so called fathers and just put it out there for all to see? when did we evolve to make toilets? I wonder.

 

[Starcrash]

You will annul the fact that knowledge and travel has expanded exponentially in the past 100, 50, 20 years. You are talking more than 200 years ago. Dude, we were riding horses less than 100 years ago or did that leave a skid mark. This prophecy is being fulfilled in your face. 20 years ago, my dad had a cell phone that had a sling over his shoulder for the battery. where else in history could this be fulfilled? Very little changed from Daniels day till the early 1900's, knowledge increased very, very, very, very slowly. Now it is almost weekly. This is the last days.

The problem here is that when I read "travel to and fro" I don't read it as "travel to and fro in an exponentially faster rate". I think you added that. But I could even give you the benefit of the doubt and grant you that assumption... let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the bible predicted that we would travel at faster and faster speeds. Do you know what "exponential growth" means? It means that the increases made now will look small compared to the rates that we'll travel at in 100 years. And that will look small compared to the increases made in another 100 years. As I said before, this isn't a prophecy that could ever not be applied to the present day, and it isn't falsifiable. Is it possible that our rate of "travel to and fro" will decrease? Technological advances only go in one direction -- once the box has been opened, it can't be closed. Once we've developed a faster way to travel, then travel will always be sped up. And like the end of Sam Harris' quote, this is something that could have been written and observed in the first century. I'm sure they observed the pace of technology, too.

 

[Starcrash]

Very little changed from Daniels day till the early 1900's, knowledge increased very, very, very, very slowly. Now it is almost weekly. This is the last days.

The same can be said about knowledge. In the time that these ancient words are written, they didn't know about the printing press. Don't you think that when the printing press was created, some Christian claimed "Look at the increase in knowledge! We're definitely living in the last days!" And then the bible was translated into many languages other than just Latin and Christians would have pronounced that as evidence of living in the last days. And then public schools were created, literacy became widespread, and the average person could read their bibles -- how much evidence do you need that they were "living in the last days"? This prediction would have always been true as well, and the fact that someone thought it would happen is only evidence that someone spotted a past pattern and thought "this pattern will probably continue into the future".

If you want to understand how these prophecies look from an atheist perspective, check out these "fulfilled prophecies of the holy qur'an" and laugh along with me at how certain the Muslim author of this article was that the Qur'an made specific predictions that prove that the Qur'an's author(s) had divine insight.

 

[megaman125]

You asked for evolution in general in the specific post that I responded to, mentioning nothing about "purely asexual to purely sexual" evolution.

No, I never asked for evidence in general. I've been asking about evidence for the transition of asexual to sexual from the moment I started asking for evidence.

Here's an article about amoebas, a form of life that shows the asexual/sexual line by reproducing in both ways. But I still think such information and argument is wasted on you. You're not seeking an answer but rather trying to find a question that can't be answered, and you're unlikely to land on one.

This is still not the evidence I asked for, and here's why it isn't. Let's revisit, yet again, what I asked for (for about the 10th time now, gee you guys still can't even get this part right). I asked for an EXPERIMENT following the scientific method which DEMONSTRATES the HYPOTHESIS that a PURELY ASEXUAL organism can evolve into a PURELY SEXUAL REPRODUCING organism. In relation to what I asked for, here's why your amoebas don't fit that.

1. Reproducing both ways =/= purely sexual reproduction.
2. An organism that can reproduce both ways does not prove an organism can transition from PURELY ASEXUAL to PURELY SEXUAL.
3. An organism that can reproduce both ways is not inconclusive proof of a transition between the two, because saying "here's an animal that's different" does not prove that it's a transition, all it shows is that you have an animal that's different. The conclusion that it's a transition because it can reproduce both ways is merely conjecture and nothing more.

For something that people claim is so scientific (evolution), it sure is hard to find scientific evidence for it.

 

[Kerry]

The problem here is that when I read "travel to and fro" I don't read it as "travel to and fro in an exponentially faster rate". I think you added that. But I could even give you the benefit of the doubt and grant you that assumption... let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the bible predicted that we would travel at faster and faster speeds. Do you know what "exponential growth" means? It means that the increases made now will look small compared to the rates that we'll travel at in 100 years. And that will look small compared to the increases made in another 100 years. As I said before, this isn't a prophecy that could ever not be applied to the present day, and it isn't falsifiable. Is it possible that our rate of "travel to and fro" will decrease? Technological advances only go in one direction -- once the box has been opened, it can't be closed. Once we've developed a faster way to travel, then travel will always be sped up. And like the end of Sam Harris' quote, this is something that could have been written and observed in the first century. I'm sure they observed the pace of technology, too.

First of all the dead sea scrolls discount your comment on the time observed or written ( come on your better than that). Secondly if you look at travel in the past, for instance, in the 1800's to travel from the east coast to the west coast ( I can't believe that I am having to explain this it is common high school curriculum) It took months if not more than a year not to mention the food that must have been stock piled and so on, Bandits on the paths waiting for travelers. Didn't you watch Gunsmoke? To say that travel has increased exponentially over the past 1,000 years is a understatement and this prophecy could only apply the modern world and none other. I can also show where in the bible that germs were taken care of by word of God 3,000 years ago but only in the past 150 years has the world understood germs. David said that God put His finger on the circle of the Earth 200 years ago science said that the Earth was flat. Knowledge has increased exponentially my friend.

 

[Kerry]

With all that, God's most prominent evidence and prophetic time clock is Israel. Which is explained in detail by the prophet Daniel, Ezekiel, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Zechariah, Hosea, Obadiah, Isaiah, Jeremiah. I have already shown the probability of biblical prophecy coming to pass in earlier post, the probability is almost impossible, yet it has come to pass exactly as it said, Nostradamus cannot claim that! Where is you evidence? Israel is in your news almost every night. Why so much attention to little Israel and keep and eye on Syria. Read and trust the bible. Good nite.

 

[GreenNnice]

Does anyone think about what would happen if you just were talking on c.c. in an 'atheists' thread about God and how God says that when you die you either have had accepted Him and live forever or not have accepted Him and die forever and in the middle of that thought and knowing what you should do and choose Him you don't you get off this site and get in your bed and begin coughing, "can't breathe, can't br----e-a-t----______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

[CoooCaw]

and you are still citing facts not in evidence; SHOW ME ONE!!!!

We are knee deep in such fossils CoooCaw, but creationists always deny the evidence, which is why I have been asking you in advance how you will recognize a true intermediate fossil when you see one. How will you know the Real McCoy when you see it?

 

[Cycel]

CoooCaw, I will give you the example of an intermediate link this weekend. It will take me some time to research the information which is likely be several paragraphs in length, though I will keep it as concise as possible. In the past my efforts were rebuffed with a brief response that went something like this: "LOL!!!!!!!!! That's just an example of an animal God created." Following that non-rebuttal I repeatedly tried to get the individual to address the different points my post raised. She would not. Then I tried to get her to explain how she could distinguish between a true intermediate fossil and “just an animal that God created.” There was never a response. A number of members had chimed in to give her “thumbs-up” but none of them would respond to my requests either.

In attempting to get a response from you on how you would recognize an intermediate fossil and distinguish it from “just another animal God created” I have been trying to avoid a repeat of my previous experience. Still, I think it’s a valid request. I will give you your long waited example, but still, how will you know a true intermediate link when you see one?

you are the one begging the question
simply, the Bible teaches us that God created discrete kinds of things;

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

I have no idea what you mean by this. It doesn’t make sense to me. Can you give me some examples? Do you mean an animal is either an example of special creation or it is an example of an intermediate link? If that is what you mean then how do you know the difference between the two?

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

CoooCaw, I cannot fathom what you are driving at. I have no idea what you mean by your four divisions. I imagine it will figure into your future rebuttal so I would like to try and understand you before we reach that bridge. Perhaps you can provide animal or fossil examples for each of your four divisions?

 

[AvalonXQ]

This is the last days.

People have been saying that in every generation. How many years will have to pass before you admit that you are wrong?

 

[AvalonXQ]

200 years ago science said that the Earth was flat.

No, it didn't. The fact that the Earth was a sphere was known prior to the origination of the scientific method in the 17th Century. So there was never a time when science said the Earth was flat.

 

[AvalonXQ]

and you are still citing facts not in evidence; SHOW ME ONE!!!!

Show you one what? Can you define transitional species in such a way that we know whether something qualifies or not?