Good reason to be an atheist?(moved from Christian Appologetics)

[WingsOfEagles07]

Natural selection is not "chance".

You totally missed the point. Like wayyy.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aYJUxvz-L2o/SHaZP9kxqXI/AAAAAAAABPk/4FFY26cKG84/s400/21.jpg

Hey look, a fish with such a beautiful design came from a single-celled organism. It does not need a designer. What a beautifully evolved creature that is, indeed.

(Sarcasm)

 

[Penumbra]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aYJUxvz-L2o/SHaZP9kxqXI/AAAAAAAABPk/4FFY26cKG84/s400/21.jpg

Hey look, a fish with such a beautiful design came from a single-celled organism. It does not need a designer. What a beautifully evolved creature that is, indeed.

(Sarcasm)

Do you believe that God personally constructed the scorpion? A creature that has a stinger to inject poison into prey so that it can consume it?

What about a spider that elegantly creates complex webs using a complex chemical system in its body so that it can catch prey, inject it with poison, wrap it up, let it die and liquefy, and then eat it?

Or a lion, along with it's teeth and claws, and it's internal system specifically intended for digesting meat?

Or the tapeworm, living inside the bodies of other animals and consuming what they eat?

Do you believe God created these things as he created that fish?

-Lyn

 

[JGG]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aYJUxvz-L2o/SHaZP9kxqXI/AAAAAAAABPk/4FFY26cKG84/s400/21.jpg

Hey look, a fish with such a beautiful design came from a single-celled organism. It does not need a designer. What a beautifully evolved creature that is, indeed.

(Sarcasm)

Even with sacasm, this is simply an argument from incredulence. It is a beautifully evolved creature. As are the lions, scropions, and tapeworms that Penumbra displayed.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Yes I so, You want to know why?? =]]

READ GENESIS 1:31, =] JESUS IS AMAZING!

If you read the Bible you'd know why, animals have to kill to eat things. Normally we were all vegetarians, but you can read so find the answer out. I mean you might know it, but idk that, and I will post some things here a minute, about some stuff.

 

[Penumbra]

Yes I so, You want to know why?? =]]

READ GENESIS 1:31, =] JESUS IS AMAZING!

If you read the Bible you'd know why, animals have to kill to eat things. Normally we were all vegetarians, but you can read so find the answer out. I mean you might know it, but idk that, and I will post some things here a minute, about some stuff.

I understand the idea of original sin messing up the food chain but that's somewhat of a dodge.

For instance, many carnivores cannot digest plant material very well, or at all. Their intestinal systems are much shorter than that of a herbivore or omnivore. Plus, some creatures have obvious hunting systems like the scorpion's venom-filled tale. If God designed the scorpion, what did it use its venom-filled tail for before the fall?

-Lyn

 

[JGG]

Atheists/Evolutionists believe that the "Big Bang" Made the whole universe, and that all life has came from random processes and chance.

I'm getting tired of correcting you on these. Firstly, atheists and evolutionists are not necessarily the same thing. Secondly, it is not required that either an atheist, or an evolutionist believe in the big bang at all. Atheism and evolution do not deal with the big bang.

Well, if everyone and everything came to being by chance that means your brain is a product of chance.

Still you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution involves chance in terms of random mutations, but that the brain developed the way it did was not the result of chance. Survival of the fittest and adaptation to our environment shaped the way all creatures developed. We developed the way we did because our survival in our environment, and propagation of our species depended on it. Seriously, there are nice, simple evolution books out there. Pick one up, read it, understand it, and come back to us with reasonable arguments.

If your brain is a product of chance that also means that your thought process that determines your logic are also products of chance. If your logic is a result of chance processes you cannot be sure it has evolved properly. You cannot even be sure you're asking the right questions because you cannot trust your own logic.

Logic didn't evolve, we learned it (or are learning it), and applied it. You're essentially saying we shouldn't trust gravity because our brains are involved in noticing it. As logic goes, I reject your initial proposal about brains being the result of chance in any event, and thus your logic is faulty.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Now that you see just "some" of the most beautifulest sea creature on the whole planet each with their unique design and purpose in this life. How did these creatures evolve? Can you state what they evolved from? How were you able to conclude that these creatures have "evolved" if you were not there to see it? (You'll say Oh it only occurs over a millions of years) Well, How do you know that these sea creatures with great designs evolved? You cannot prove evidence. You were not there to see it. Science states the through observation you can know things are true, but how do you (evolutionists) know the true origins of the "Big Bang" and the "soup" theories are true whenever you cannot make observations or test these hypothesis's because no one was there to see it, No one was there to see these things happen. These two theories have to have "beliefs" and "faith" in order to perceive that they are true. So to say that these creatures have evolved you are being irrational and arbitrary, so these fish obviously did not evolve because you cannot produce observations that they did, you cannot do test experiments to say they did evolve. But see Me as a Creationist can account for these things and the origins of their life. Our LORD our GOD was there at the beginning, tell me who was at the beginning to prove the "big bang" ? I know how we were created, GOD was there in the beginning he said He created us, tell me who was there in the beginning to prove the chemical random chance processes that created life.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Above as you can see, Is another "set" of the world's most beautiful sea creatures with a special design and purpose in this world. According to Evolutionists these species of fish, each one listed has a common decent, or common ancestor, well, Can you tell me each ancestor to each fish that has such a complex design that according to evolutionists only the random chance processes can make? How did these creatures evolve? How can you prove these creatures have evolved? You cannot. You were not there to see it. You cannot make observations and say these creatures evolved just because you perceive things according to your own worldview without a basis of nothing but beliefs of mankind. You cannot perform experiments on these creatures and say "they evolved" ... How do we knwo the big bang happened? No one was there to see it. If so, prove it. How do we know we came from soup? We do not know, No one was there to see it, You cannot make observations on these two theories and say it is true you cannot do any experiments on it either because no one was there. So, If according to Evolutionists, If GOD is not real He would not have been there in the beginning, well mankind has made the assumption of the big bang and soup, but how do we know that is true? We weren't there either, so Who knows the "truth" of the Origins of the universe and life if no one was there? I know who was there according to the scriptures the LORD our GOD! The LORD hath created these beings as pictured above. Such complexity of creatures only GOD could make, not evolution. Evolution has only one basis amongst the people of its followers : " Belief of the assumptions/beliefs that evolutionists "think" what happened to this organism or creature, or the origin of the universe. " How do we know this is true, what they are saying? No one was there to see the dinosaur die. No one was there at big bang. No one was there to say these organisms evolved. No one, nothing, Except JESUS CHRIST our LORD!

 

[JGG]

Now that you see just "some" of the most beautiful sea creatures on the whole planet, each with their unique design and purpose in this life. How did these creatures evolve? Can you state what they evolved from?

Admitedly, I am not a marine biologist so I do not know what these particular species of fish are on sight. Can you please provide their names and classification please, and I'm sure I can look them up.

How were you able to conclude that these creatures have "evolved" if you were not there to see it?

These particular animals? I can't say just by looking at pictures. Might I suggest reading a book on it?

(You'll say "Oh, it only occurs over a millions of years!")

Surprise!

Well, How do you know that these sea creatures with great designs evolved?

Because everything evolved.

You cannot prove evidence.

I can't...what?

You were not there to see it.

I wasn't there to see the birth of Richard Nixon. I still have reason to believe it occurred.

Science states the through observation you can know things are true,

I know, sometimes you just can't shut "Science" up. I think you are confused on how deep "observation" goes. Imagine "observe" more in terms of "examine" and "research."

but how do you (evolutionists) know the true origins of the "Big Bang" and the "soup" theories are true when you cannot make observations, or test these hypotheses? No one was there to see it. No one was there to see these things happen.

You mean the Big Bang, the cosmological model of the origins of the known universe, and abiogenesis, the study of how life on Earth began? Well, luckily evolution is different from these, and neither is strictly necessary for evolution to be true. Really, both the Big Bang, and abiogenesis are irrelevant to the discussion on evolution.

However, just because nobody actually saw it, this does not mean that there is no evidence that they happened which can be studied.

No one was there to see it. No one was there to see these things happen are true whenever you cannot make observations or test these hypotheses because no one was there to see it. No one was there to see these things happen.

I'm sorry, can you say again?

These two theories have to have "beliefs" and "faith" in order to perceive that they are true.

Again, these would be "beliefs" and "faith" based on pretty strong scientific evidence.

So to say that these creatures have evolved you are being irrational and arbitrary.

This might be true. Tell us what kind of fish they are, and their scientific classification, and we'll find out.

So these fish obviously did not evolve because you cannot produce observations that they did.

Eye witnesses? No. Evidence that they evolved? Let's find out.

You cannot do test experiments to say they did evolve.

Wait. Why not? Genes and DNA are pretty impressive in tracking down an evolutionary path.

But see as a Creationist, I can account for these things and the origins of their life.

Godidit?

Our LORD our GOD was there at the beginning. Tell me who was at the beginning to prove the "big bang"?

I would like to speak to this LORD our GOD, so that I might ask him some questions about the beginning of the universe. Does he have email?

I know how we were created, GOD was there in the beginning he said He created us.

Ummm...okay. How did he create us?

Tell me, who was there in the beginning to prove the chemical random chance processes that created life?

Firstly, if you wouldn't mind fixing the layout of the board by adjusting your pictures, I would appreciate it.

Secondly, the editing is a free service. You're welcome!

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

I wasn't there to see the birth of Richard Nixon. I still have reason to believe it occurred.


This is so unreasonable and Biased, of course you "SEEN" him from somewhere, but have you seen the big bang? Or how about those "first Chemcial reaction processes" ?? No, This cannot be true.

Mutations also do not add information to the Genome. False information you stated.

 

[TerranceL]

I wasn't there to see the birth of Richard Nixon. I still have reason to believe it occurred.


This is so unreasonable and Biased, of course you "SEEN" him from somewhere, but have you seen the big bang? Or how about those "first Chemcial reaction processes" ?? No, This cannot be true.

We've seen the evidence for it.

Mutations also do not add information to the Genome. False information you stated.

You don't know anything about biology do you?

Post your sources that say that mutations don't add information to the genome.

Also.. why did you capitalize genome?

 

[JGG]

I wasn't there to see the birth of Richard Nixon. I still have reason to believe it occurred.


This is so unreasonable and Biased, of course you "SEEN" him from somewhere, but have you seen the big bang? Or how about those "first Chemcial reaction processes" ?? No, This cannot be true.

Why? I never saw the birth of Richard Nixon. However, I can infer from the fact that the man lived that he was indeed born. It is possible that he was spawned, or grown, or built, or crafted, or hatched...but I'm going to go with born. Do you not agree? Did you see the birth of Richard Nixon?

Mutations also do not add information to the Genome. False information you stated.

I'm sorry, where did I talk about that? Or are you on a tangent I'm not following?

Now, I asked some questions that were actually not rhetorical, and I would appreciate a prompt answer:

1. Could you please give the email address of this God fellow, I would like to ask him some questions about the creation of the universe.

2. In the meantime, from a scientific basis, how did God create the universe? Specifics please.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Why? I never saw the birth of Richard Nixon. However, I can infer from the fact that the man lived that he was indeed born. It is possible that he was spawned, or grown, or built, or crafted, or hatched...but I'm going to go with born. Do you not agree? Did you see the birth of Richard Nixon?



I'm sorry, where did I talk about that? Or are you on a tangent I'm not following?

Now, I asked some questions that were actually not rhetorical, and I would appreciate a prompt answer:

1. Could you please give the email address of this God fellow, I would like to ask him some questions about the creation of the universe.

2. In the meantime, from a scientific basis, how did God create the universe? Specifics please.

I did not see the birth of Richard Nixon no, but there is reasonable proof, because there is Tv, Newspapers, and He was president at one time so yeah it is reasonable, but the "Big Bang" however is unreasonable, No one was there to see it, and no one can prove it happened, because no one was there to see it happen, You cannot make observations on it, and All the evidence we have is in the "present" it is just the way the different "worldviews" interpret the facts, Evolutionists say that because of fossil record, DNA, or whatever, they say, The universe was produced by a "big bang" this is just a belief of the scientist of what happened. Scientists are biased they are not 100% correct on everything they do, they are fallible just like you. No one was there to see the big bang, or the soup create humans so no one can prove it happened, You talk about Richard nixon and how you weren't there to see it. You don't get the picture, note I said, "No one" was there to see those things happen(big bang, soup)..Just like you were not there when Richard was born, but "someone" was there, therefore it can be proven true. No one can tell me the big bang and the soup are 100% true because no one was there to see it happen.

1. No not an email address but he does have a phone number, Call : Jeremiah 33:3

2. GOD said it and it was so, that simple, but you all will say that is absurd just because our humans minds cannot produce something so great compared to His knowledge. You cannot accept such a GOD who can do such things because you cannot interpret the evidence we have from a creation worldview but from an evolutionary worldview. You all don't understand creation to the slightest, just like we don't know "everything" about evolution.

 

[JGG]

I did not see the birth of Richard Nixon no, but there is reasonable proof, because there is Tv, Newspapers, and He was president at one time so yeah it is reasonable, but the "Big Bang" however is unreasonable.

Why is the big bang unreasonable, but God is a reasonable suggestion?

No one was there to see it, and no one can prove it happened, because no one was there to see it happen, You cannot make observations on it, and All the evidence we have is in the "present" it is just the way the different "worldviews" interpret the facts

Well, in much the same way we have both inferred Richard Nixon's birth, evidenced by knowledge of his existence, we can infer certain facts about what happened at the origins of the universe. Sure all the evidence we have is in the present...but it is from the past.

Evolutionists say that because of fossil record, DNA, or whatever, they say, The universe was produced by a "big bang" this is just a belief of the scientist of what happened.

Seriously, you must listen to me here, because I've said it before, as have several other people: Evolution is completely separate from the Big Bang. There doesn't need to be a big bang for evolution to occur.

This is something you need to understand and remember if you want to be taken seriously, even by creationists. In case you haven't noticed it, I really can't take you seriously at the moment.

And no, the big bang is not just a belief...its a belief based on a lot of scientific evidence.

Scientists are biased

Biased in what way? Are you suggesting that you're not just a teensy bit biased yourself?

they are not 100% correct on everything they do, they are fallible just like you.

Yes, I am a scientist. However, I find it fascinating that you seem to find yourself infallible. Interesting ego you got there.

No one was there to see the big bang, or the soup create humans so no one can prove it happened, You talk about Richard nixon and how you weren't there to see it. You don't get the picture, note I said, "No one" was there to see those things happen(big bang, soup)..Just like you were not there when Richard was born, but "someone" was there, therefore it can be proven true.

Okay, but let's remember my point. Like myself, you simply assume that Nixon was born, and therefore someone must have been there to see it. But, suppose we're both wrong, and Nixon was not born, but hatched from an egg? How do you know he wasn't? Nevermind that I wasn't there, you weren't there, and we don't know anyone living who was to verify it for us. How do you know? A better question is why do you assume he was born at all?

No one can tell me the big bang and the soup are 100% true because no one was there to see it happen.

You agree as well that you cannot say with 100% certainty that Richard Nixon was not hatched from an egg? You weren't there to see it.

1. No not an email address but he does have a phone number, Call : Jeremiah 33:3

That's not a phone number. Seriously, how do we ask this guy for more information?

2. GOD said it and it was so, that simple, but you all will say that is absurd just because our humans minds cannot produce something so great compared to His knowledge. You cannot accept such a GOD who can do such things because you cannot interpret the evidence we have from a creation worldview but from an evolutionary worldview. You all don't understand creation to the slightest, just like we don't know "everything" about evolution.

Nevermind an evolutionary worldview, how about a scientific worldview. How did God create everything? How do we study this now? What traces of our origins are still out there? How do we find it? How do we look at it? How do we test it?

In other words, what evidence is there that God created us, other than because you say he did? So far your only evidence has been fish. And not particularly good evidence at that.

 

[Penumbra]

WingsofEagles-

If you don't mind, I'd still like an answer about what the scorpion used its venomous tail for back when it was a vegetarian.

Yes I so, You want to know why?? =]]

READ GENESIS 1:31, =] JESUS IS AMAZING!

If you read the Bible you'd know why, animals have to kill to eat things. Normally we were all vegetarians, but you can read so find the answer out. I mean you might know it, but idk that, and I will post some things here a minute, about some stuff.

I understand the idea of original sin messing up the food chain but that's somewhat of a dodge.

For instance, many carnivores cannot digest plant material very well, or at all. Their intestinal systems are much shorter than that of a herbivore or omnivore. Plus, some creatures have obvious hunting systems like the scorpion's venom-filled tale. If God designed the scorpion, what did it use its venom-filled tail for before the fall?

-Lyn

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Why is the big bang unreasonable, but God is a reasonable suggestion?


(Because No one was there to prove it, this is just an assumption that it happened by a scientist who believes this is how the universe came about, and what evidence is there for the "big bang" ? I mean, For the big bang to be true even there has to be III population stars and scientists cannot account for these stars. Where are they? how do you know yourself JGG that the big bang occured? You do not.)



Well, in much the same way we have both inferred Richard Nixon's birth, evidenced by knowledge of his existence, we can infer certain facts about what happened at the origins of the universe. Sure all the evidence we have is in the present...but it is from the past.

(Evidence as because someone was there to see him being born, that is the evidence along with that he was president. You can "infer" certain assumptions of what happened at the origins of the universe. Evidence is in the present to show the past but no one knows the past, No was there to see how all the dinosaurs died. So, to say the dinosaurs died from a catastrophic event would be to state a hypothesis based on a belief of what they interpret the evidence to be. If two dinosaurs were buried together, You couldn't tell me if they lived together, fought each other, the only thing you show is that they were buried together. Anything other than that is an interpretation of the evidence given which makes it a belief according to each worldview.)



Seriously, you must listen to me here, because I've said it before, as have several other people: Evolution is completely separate from the Big Bang. There doesn't need to be a big bang for evolution to occur.


(Okay, If evolutionists did not make the "big bang" who did? If there was no big bang, how did the earth come about to start evolution? Every cause has an effect JGG. What is the cause of Evolution?)


This is something you need to understand and remember if you want to be taken seriously, even by creationists. In case you haven't noticed it, I really can't take you seriously at the moment.


(Okay. don't idc.)


And no, the big bang is not just a belief...its a belief based on a lot of scientific evidence.

(The big bang is just a belief. Because you take the evidence given that is in the present time, as in "today" which can tell about the past, you know it is from the past, but you cannot know the past. What evidence is shown to prove the theory of the big bang that can be observed and tested? Or just what evidence is there? Like I said, To state what happened in the past by the evidence of the present is to interpret what a scientist believe what happened based on the glasses of the evolutionary worldview.)


Biased in what way? Are you suggesting that you're not just a teensy bit biased yourself?

(Everyone is biased, but it is which bias is the best bias with which to be biased. Most people view scientists as the following four facts ;

1. He is unbiased
2. He is objective
3. He is infallible
4. He wears a white coat.

but here is the truth about scientists ;

1. He is biased (look at his books; Chemistry, Evolution, Life of Darwin, Anthropology, origin of species, etc.)
2. He is not objective.
3. He is Human.
4. He seldom wears a white coat.)



Yes, I am a scientist. However, I find it fascinating that you seem to find yourself infallible. Interesting ego you got there.

(No I know, I am not infallible, I am fallible, I just base my evidence and beliefs on the Bible which is infallible and someone who was there.

Evolutionists base there evidence on no basis whatsoever except human beliefs. They have no explanation for such a basis of the preconditions of intelligibility in which they have to be inconsistent to do science. They presume their evidence based on scientists who were not there.)



Okay, but let's remember my point. Like myself, you simply assume that Nixon was born, and therefore someone must have been there to see it. But, suppose we're both wrong, and Nixon was not born, but hatched from an egg? How do you know he wasn't? Nevermind that I wasn't there, you weren't there, and we don't know anyone living who was to verify it for us. How do you know? A better question is why do you assume he was born at all?


(Well duh, this is just illogical, He is a human. Humans don't come from eggs, well, how do I know, because I have never know any human to lay an egg and it hatch to become the President of the United States, plus you can look at his Biography, If something that odd happened they would have it recorded somewhere that is just stupid.)


You agree as well that you cannot say with 100% certainty that Richard Nixon was not hatched from an egg? You weren't there to see it.

Yes I can, no where in history has a human being come from an actual egg. This is just an illogical statement. Someone was there to see him born therefore we know he was born from human parents. (I stated this issue above.)



That's not a phone number. Seriously, how do we ask this guy for more information?

(Jeremiah 33:3 says it all, If you do not know how, I mean, Idk you can figure that out yourself, lol.)



Nevermind an evolutionary worldview, how about a scientific worldview. How did God create everything? How do we study this now? What traces of our origins are still out there? How do we find it? How do we look at it? How do we test it?

(The account of Genesis is how he created it all, He has superior knowledge compared to humans, and since the LORD our GOD, is smarter than His creation (humans) this cannot be? Evolutionists think just because GOD is just not by a lot smarter than the knowledge that we obtain he cannot be real because a Supernatural being smarter than humans cannot be, and this is just unreasonable. How do we study this now? Well from an Evolutionary worldview you cannot study anything the way I see from a Creationist worldview, because to study this now, you would have to study the evidence given to us in the present from a creationist worldview and you would not be able to do that because you dent the deity of GOD and His authortative power. How do you find it? Same thing as the question before this one, To find this proof of creation you have to take this evidence from the present and apply it to the bible and it perfectly lines up with the bible from the biblical creation worldview, but you cannot because you deny the deity of GOD. How do we look at it? Same answers I have stated. How do we test it? Same answers I have stated.)

In other words, what evidence is there that God created us, other than because you say he did? So far your only evidence has been fish. And not particularly good evidence at that.

(The evidence is he same evidence that we all have, We all live in the same planet, the same universe with the same animals the same plants, the same evidence. It is just how we interpret the evidence according to our worldview, Your worldview has no basis for such claims, The same evidence that you have, is the same evidence we have but the way we interpret lines up with the basis of the Bible. You look at some evidence and say this world came from a Bang by the words of someone of who was not there, well We look at the same evidence and base it on the Bible of who was there.)

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

WingsofEagles-

If you don't mind, I'd still like an answer about what the scorpion used its venomous tail for back when it was a vegetarian.

This is an example of a Strawman argument. Because you do not know if before the fall the scorpion had venom in its tail. To say that it did would be illogical because you do not know this.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No. It is not a strawman argument. A strawman argument is when one represents another's views falsely (knowingly or otherwise) in order to tear it down. It is a false argument being destroyed, not the real one.

Penumbra did not make this mistake.

 

[Tinker Grey]

On another note, it is remarkable to me that most Christians seem to define the most creative act of the universe as the fall. After all, it added stingers to scorpion's tails and changed the enzymes in carnivore's stomachs, etc.