Atheist arguments, viewed differently

Just to put some different views on some old arguments I thought I would post this to see what you all think.

1 = Atheist, 2 = Another view

For example

1. Evolution is proven by fossils
2. What if god put them there to test our faith, or the devil put them there to make us lose faith (could work after all look at the forbidden fruit story)

1. Humans and monkeys share much the same DNA
2. Humans and Dogs share 95% DNA... We don't walk around on 4 legs (argument now invalid)

1. The earth is millions of years old
2. The current population of Earth (5.5 billion) could easily be generated from 8 people in less than 4000 years. (4 thousand years is not taking into effect or natural disasters etc that could kill many)

Sorry I couldn't come up with more I'm pretty tired.
Feel free to add soem of your own.

Do I really have to say anything for this? Apparently, God is a trickster.

That 5% makes all the difference.

Dinosaurs?

What is this, I don't even....

Even a 3% difference can change the whole purpose of something. Let me give you two EXTREMELY similar sentences, just two letters different, and see how different it can make things.

When going through hardships, turn to the Lord to give you counsel.

When going through hardships, turn to the world to give you counsel.

See how different they are? One says to go to the Lord, and the other says to turn to the world. And the Lord and the world are two very different things...

Bob: Thank you for your responses. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one here concerned by this.

Further discussion:

1. Humans and monkeys share much the same DNA
2. Humans and Dogs share 95% DNA... We don't walk around on 4 legs (argument now invalid)

Your point #2 does not make any sense as a "rebuttal" to point #1. It is true that humans and all sorts of animals (monkeys, dogs, pigs, rats) share some of the same DNA. Scientists (both atheists and Christians who are scientists) agree on this.

Shared DNA among different species is a result, not a cause, of evolution. And the only people who don't get that are Christians who deny evolution. And the reason they don't get it is either they were taught wrong, or they ignored what they were taught about evolution.

1. The earth is millions of years old
2. The current population of Earth (5.5 billion) could easily be generated from 8 people in less than 4000 years. (4 thousand years is not taking into effect or natural disasters etc that could kill many)

Two problems with your "rebuttal."
First of all, the current population of the earth is closer to 7 billion. And even the most strict creationists say the world is at least 6,000 years old.
Having said this, I would concede that it's possible that 7 billion people could be generated from 8 in 6000 years or so. This does not negate the fact that the earth IS millions of years old.
It's also possible that the entire human population of the earth comes from aliens who landed here 200 years ago, and manufactured the history we take for granted (anything before 1800), altering our minds to accept that. Again, this does not negate the age of the earth.
It is possible that we do not exist at all, but we are all just brains in vats somewhere, being fed information that simulates the things we see, hear, touch, etc.
All kinds of things are POSSIBLE. When you start with a theory and work backwards to find evidence that supports that theory, what you get is fascinating for story-telling, but absolutely useless for science. Science doesn't care about what could have happened. Science takes the evidence that already exists and extrapolates what DID happen based on that evidence.

I am sick and tired of Christians who set themselves up against science, as if you can accept either one or the other, but not both. Because when they do that, they lose, every time. Science is provable, verifiable. Faith is not. If you tell people they have to chose, most people will chose that which can be known over that which can be believed.

On the other hand, if you point out that there is no conflict between believing in God and accepting evolution, the big-bang theory, the theory of gravity, or any other laws of science, all of a sudden we win.

I believe that God wrote the Bible through inspiration. I am also certain that the book of Genesis was never intended to be taken literally. A simple reading of it shows that it was written as a myth, a parable. To me, it's so obvious, I've known it since I was 6. I have never seen a conflict with my devout faith in God and the evidence the earth (which God created, evidence and all) reveals.

Why do so many Christians seem to think that God is incapable of using parables? Don't they believe that Jesus, who used parables more often than literal speaking, is the same God?

I can set up all sorts of "dichotomies" for you, showing how religion is "wrong." What good is that? I will convince no one, unless their faith is weak.

Wow, you need to become familiar with Answers from Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries international.
Fossils are no proof the a simple life evolved from chemical and then subsequent kinds of animals slowly changes over millions of years. In fact, because the fossils are fully formed and diverse right from the start with only a few transitional forms (and even these are highly questionable) evolution is missing not presenting evidence from them. Additionally, thousands of living fossils have been recovered which are supposedly millions of year old creatures that we have discovered alive and well with NO CHANGES. Fossils are millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. Fossils are extremely great evidence for the global flood of Noah. In one trip to the Grand Canyon I witnessed thousands of nautoloids all oriented in one direction when they were buried. The direction was the opposite of the laying being deposited from the flood. This is quite easy to see and examine for yourself. Then there are polystratic fossils I have witness which are huge trees deposited as fossils right through supposedly millions of years of layers. There is so much evidence for fossils as buried remnants of the flood it is overwhelming and I have seen with my own eyes. The reason evolutionists deny the global flood and catastrophic burial is because of their anti-Creator religious worldview of naturalism which denies even the possibility of a creator. But the facts are before their eyes and they choose to ignore it.

Human-Ape coding similarities are well explained by Biblical Creationists and there are many, many differences in design codes again well document at AIG or Creation Ministries.

Let's discuss why you think the world is 3.5 billion years old. Is your reason based on
1. radiometric dating of meteors
2. starlight and time
3. geological column

Have you read or do you know the Biblical Creation explanations for all the above? If you hear them you may well be amazed and then may not be sure of Billions of years.

Dinosaurs existed in the same time as people? Please don't tell me you get your facts from The Flintstones.

The definition of "religion" is belief or faith in one or more gods. So, if you have a relationship with God, you have religion,by definition, whether you like it or not.

If you say that "organized religion" is the (or a) problem, you might have a few takers.

Christianity is a religion. Yes, it is also a relationship with Jesus, but that does not preclude it from being a religion.

Perhaps you can indicate what aspects of "religion" you find bad, and I can help you find a word that actually means what you want, since the word "religion" is already taken to mean something very different from what you seem to be indicating.

This is false. There is overwhelming evidence to support evolution. You can say the evidence is misinterpreted by scientists (and then you'd have to explain how that evidence should be interpreted), but to claim there is no evidence is utterly stupid.

He might as well.

Have you ever observed the ancient caves around the world and the ancient native indians and looked at their drawings on the cave walls, pottery, and Other historical artifacts? If you check out these artifacts in general archeology you will find pictures identical to fossil dinosaurs.

Have you read the book from AIG on DRAGON legends or have you checked history on descriptions of dragons from the ancients that appear to be dinosaurs or have you observed in so many cultures like China pictures of Dragons and symbols from ancient times that are identical to dinosaurs?

Have you read about the 25 species of dinosaurs that were found frozen not mineralized as fossil rock in Alaska that have been examined and tested for radio carbon (if radio carbon is found it proves they are less than 50,000 years old as the half life of C14 is only 5500 years and carbon dating does not prove millions of years like so many ignorant people think). These dinosaurs also have known DNA proteins that deteriorate in thousands of years. Or have you read about the T-Rex found with lfe tissue not mineralized and hemoglobin (deteriorates in thousands of years) or red blook cells?

I could go on and on but please do not give me the "you are stupid if you think dinosaurs and people lived together argument" that is based on anti-Creator religious evolution worldview and ignorance and willfull ignorance of the facts. There are many more of these facts if you simply open your eyes. But if you choose to be brainwashed by the propoganda and mis-information fed to you from the religion of naturalism just remember you are the ignorant one then. But you can learn can you not? God Created heaven and earth and Genesis is true history. I am willing to help you with this if you are willing to open your heart and seek God the Creator.

Your definition of religion is not correct. Webster defines as:
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Clearly (and our supreme court has also agreed with this) that naturalism (evolution is based on natural processes and no Creator) is a belief and practice with a worldview based on a belief there is no Creator.

It is an anti-Creator religion. The first statement of the GTE General Theory of Evolution is that some unknown form of life that has never been observed only imagined which I will call IT, came about as a result of abiogenesis or non-living chemicals formed life complete with the very complex coding system, capability for copying code for reproduction, and all the other complex machinery required for the simplest form of life. IT has never been observed by science and is simply a belief. Then the GTE says IT2 a higher kind of creature came about by mutation and selection. However, those processes have no mechanisms to add information content to a genome. There is also no observable evidence for IT2 nor is there any science methods known for how one of kind of creature or plant add information into a higher creature. This 2nd idea of descent of all creatures and plants from a common simple creature IT is a religious belief and has nothing to do with any observable science. In fact the difference between vertebrates (fishes or animal with backbones) and invertebrates can not even be explained properly by evolutionist except by wild stories. The same goes for dinosaurs-birds and all the rest. These are simply well told stories believed by the anti-Creator naturalists.

Also, we all have the same facts both Biblical creationist and evolutionists but it is the INTERPRETATION of those facts based on the worldview that matter. For example, evolutionists show common links between certain creatures having the same number of bones on the hand-5. They say this similarity proves evolution. Biblical creationists say the Designer reused a similar design structure in different creatures for a similar purpose. However, evolutionist simply cannot explain the huge variantion of creature features and functions that are required to exist together for survivability. Even between birds such a woodpecker that has so many special features that no other birds has that must all be present for survival such as a reinforced skull, a special opening in it's skull for storing it's long tongue, a special sponge tissue that protects its brain from injury when it breaks wood, and on and on and on. These are not even explained because they cannot be.

What evidence do you have for evolution that you are so sure about? Let's discuss it and I will show you the evolutionary interpretation of the "fact" can also be interpreted in a logical way with biblical creation.

I pray you are not being a puppet and used for the enemy so he can use you,abuse you then devour you.then drag you to hell!Then laugh at you!
Your choice heaven or hell though!

Hmmmm, seems to come down to what you fill yourself with....The Living Waters or the cool aid.

It's not exactly far-fetched if:

A) You believe that God created the world in 6 literal 24-hour days.
B) You believe that man was created after animals

Otherwise, sure, it's a bunch of baloney :/

I have seen a lot of the ancient cave drawings you mention, and never seen one picture of a dinosaur among them. Perhaps you can provide a link to that?

No, I have not read about this. I would be interested indeed to see dinosaur fossils that have been carbon-dated. Can you provide a link to this? Thanks.

I am very eager to see these "facts" you mention that contradict decades of facts that have been gathered to the contrary.

I already know God the Creator, thank you, but am very willing to learn about these alternate scientific findings.

Okay, definition 1b and 3 (which is labeled "archaic" anyway) are contrary to what I stated, but 1a, 2, and 4 are basically what I said. So, since my definition agrees with most of the definition you posted (yours is more generalized but the same thing) ... how is that wrong.

It'd be like if I said, "2+2=4" and you said, "No, you are wrong. 2+2=1+1+1+1=4." Reading comprehension is your friend.

I would say that those who accept evolution AND believe that there is no God do follow a sort-of religion. Belief in no God requires faith, as there is just as much evidence for no god as there is for god.

However, since evolution is accepted by millions of devout believers (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.) it is not the "evolution" part of that that makes it faith. The acceptance of evolution is simply the acceptance of the overwhelming evidence supporting it. There is no faith involved.

Can you provide support for this statement, please? Thank you.

Well, yes. Creationists interpret the evidence that says this planet is millions of years old as being false evidence, either planted by God to trick us (making God out to be a liar and trickster, which would make him worthy of neither worship nor praise), or created by Satan (giving Satan more power than God has given him, the ability to create). Scientists interpret those facts to say what they say. I suppose I could agree with that.

But that puts Creationists clearly outside of orthodox Christianity, since Orthodox Christianity teaches, among other things, that (1) God is good and does not lie, and (2) Satan has no real power to create, only to corrupt what already exists.

So if you believe in a God who lies, and/or in a Satan who has that much power, I support your right in that faith. I will not share in it, however.

Um, no. There are WAY more than 5 bones in the human hand. It's actually dozens. And very few other mammals have as many bones in their hands as humans have. Please provide any support that any evolutionist has ever said, 1, that humans have only 5 bones in their hand, or 2, that other creatures have the same number of bones, and therefore evolution is true. Both of these statements are completely false. Not only are the bases false, and therefore no scientist would accept them (a simple look at the skeleton proves it false), no scientist, even if he or she accepted these false statements, would say they prove evolution.

So do theistic evolutionists.

FALSE. Evolutionists CAN and DO explain it ... the very way you do: this is what is required to exist together for maximum "survivability" (which isn't really a word, but I know what you mean. The word scientists use is survival).

Fair enough.

Let's start with the easy stuff:

Understanding Evolution

There are lots of additional links there fore more.

Eagerly awaiting.

Not sure who this was directed towards, but for your information, "heaven" vs. "hell" is not my choice (or any other human's choice), but GOD'S choice. GOD decides, no one else. Unless you think that Jesus isn't God, in which case I'd say it's God's choice with Jesus' help.

It's worse than that. They have to believe that man was created BEFORE animals, and then animals were un-created and re-created after man, in order to believe that the Bible is literal.

Now THAT'S a stretch.