Atheism: Your Views

[Markus6]

Uh oh is right. Those trees were dated using the faulty 'carbon dating' method. Here is why you shouldn't trust carbon dating. http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php

I'll see your link and raise you another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Calibration

All the points they brought up have been considered by the scientists using carbon dating.

Furthermore, if these trees WERE 8000 years old then that would mean the biblical flood could not have happened. The timeframe wouldn't have been right, as it happened nearly 5000 years ago. http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/flooddate.html No tree could have survived the flood.

True

Also, this would still present a problem for the evolutionist's 'age of the earth' theory. 8000 years is not 2 billion.

No. Nobody is saying there has to be a tree that has been alive the whole time the earth has been here. It's remarkable that this one managed as long as it did.

 

[Luther073082]

Oh here is a much better one on starter marriages. This is what I was looking for originally.

http://www.marieclaire.com/life/sex/advice/starter-husband

 

[WileyCoyote]

I'm sorry, but the world does not follow such silly logic.

I made that statement because these fossils could be fake, as China has made big business out of making fake fossils.

Google it, or look at wikipedia. It seriously isn't that hard. I also have a funny feeling you don't know what "missing link" actually means.

Sure I do. I said 'missing link' because evolution claimed for YEARS that reptiles evolved into birds without offering a shred of evidence. Only recently have these 'discoveries' (missing link, tying reptiles to birds) been found.

Easy, the creation in Genesis isn't suppose to be read literally.

So birds being created first and then reptiles isn't supposed to be taken literally? That would sure make things convenient, wouldn't it? So what do you suppose this would represent? If it doesn't mean that birds were created first, what does it really mean?

Many church founders such as St. Augustine had no problems with this idea.

Um, Arelius Augustine was a persecutor of people who didn't follow his religion and even killed some of them. He also manufactured the heretical 'Perseverance of the Saints' doctrine that John Calvin later adopted. You might want to pick a better example.

Even early fundamentalists had no problems with this idea (They were against evolution not because it was in the Bible per say, but because it took "God" out of the equation. They had no problems admitting the world was older for example)

Please tell me how this isn't 'appealing to popularity'.

So you actually don't have the text on you, or even know what their name is? How do I even know you actually read them?

I haven't. I've heard in seminars that these particular states have Haeckel's drawings in their textbooks. They provided names, but I just cannot remember them. I don't have a photographic memory. Maybe age has something to do with it.

And...? I would imagine they would be in most textbooks. Right or wrong, it was a major scientific event. Most textbooks have one or two chapters talking about the history of the subject or often go into the history of how a theory came about. They often include theories and other stuff that were later to be proven wrong, but thats not the point.

Only problem is that it has been confirmed that it is being taught, not as a theory that was later proven wrong, but as proof for evolution. Hence, it is a LIE.

 

[HannahBanana]

Not talking about the liberal media (Although I do think the media leans that way) I'm talking about an anti-christian media.

(There are liberal christains)

Also you seem to determine anything from a conservative source is not true, so why shouldn't I do the same here?

I typed in "media anti-christian" (without the quotation marks) into Google and this is what I got: http://www.google.com/search?q=medi...avclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B2GGGL_enUS202US203. Notice how all of the results are from Christian websites. Does that not seem suspicious at all to you?

Question how do doctors deterime if you are dead or alive?

Is there any reason why you just completely ignored the fact that I said that everyone doesn't have to be pro-life? I mean, why do we have to start this tired old debate at all when there's absolutely no reason for you to try to "convert" me to being pro-life?

Type in starter marriages in google but here is one.

http://www.slate.com/?id=2061596

Okay, so what? As long as those marriages are childless, I don't see the harm in them. Seriously, just because something (like a "starter marriage") doesn't follow Biblical morals doesn't mean that it's bad.

And that doesn't mean that its ok to cator to the 20% either. And yet we see it constantly.

If the media catered to the 80%, the 20% would complain (and they'd cry "discrimination," since they're a minority group), but if they catered to the 20%, the 80% would complain. The media is only catering to the minorities because they don't want to be accused of discriminating against them by catering to the majority instead. Can you seriously fault them for that?

But most do

True.

That isn't what I'm getting at.

I'm getting at the fact that divorce is bad pure and simple. Occasionally and I do say occassionally its better then the alternative of staying married.

But divorce is always bad.

How is it bad, beyond the fact that the Bible says it is?

What is untrustworthy about the source?

The sheer fact that it takes every chance it can get to smear liberals. Would you trust a source that constantly smeared conservatives?

 

[Markus6]

Sure I do. I said 'missing link' because evolution claimed for YEARS that reptiles evolved into birds without offering a shred of evidence. Only recently have these 'discoveries' (missing link, tying reptiles to birds) been found.

Science is making theories, using the theories to make predictions and then looking for evidence to support or falsify the predictions. A triple check for evolution on this count.

I haven't. I've heard in seminars that these particular states have Haeckel's drawings in their textbooks. They provided names, but I just cannot remember them. I don't have a photographic memory. Maybe age has something to do with it.

Convenient. Please try and dig this up so all the evolutionists on this board who don't want these drawings in the textbooks can protest against them.

 

[Maverick3000]

I made that statement because these fossils could be fake, as China has made big business out of making fake fossils.

And there is no proof of that. The fossils went through the exact same testing and procedure as the fake fossil did. Why would they not be discovered as hoaxes?

Sure I do. I said 'missing link' because evolution claimed for YEARS that reptiles evolved into birds without offering a shred of evidence. Only recently have these 'discoveries' (missing link, tying reptiles to birds) been found.

The idea of dinosaurs evolving into birds is a actually a relatively new thing. It really wasn't brought out into the open until the 70s, and didn't gain near universal support until the fossils showed up.

So birds being created first and then reptiles isn't supposed to be taken literally? That would sure make things convenient, wouldn't it? So what do you suppose this would represent? If it doesn't mean that birds were created first, what does it really mean?

It doesn't mean anything. Its just a story that was told by people to explain where the world came from.

Um, Arelius Augustine was a persecutor of people who didn't follow his religion and even killed some of them. He also manufactured the heretical 'Perseverance of the Saints' doctrine that John Calvin later adopted. You might want to pick a better example. Please tell me how this isn't 'appealing to popularity'.

How is that relevant?

I haven't. I've heard in seminars that these particular states have Haeckel's drawings in their textbooks. They provided names, but I just cannot remember them. I don't have a photographic memory. Maybe age has something to do with it.

Then I highly recommend you actually research a few things before you make wild accusations and incorrect information. Stating evidence based on hearsay means nothing.

Only problem is that it has been confirmed that it is being taught, not as a theory that was later proven wrong, but as proof for evolution. Hence, it is a LIE.

No it isn't. You haven't even read the textbooks in question or even know what they said. It proves nothing more then that you need to do more research.

 

[WileyCoyote]

Convenient. Please try and dig this up so all the evolutionists on this board who don't want these drawings in the textbooks can protest against them.

You mean to tell me that if I can find the names of the textbooks pushing Haeckel's drawings, you would actually protest against the people promoting those textbooks?

 

[HannahBanana]

You mean to tell me that if I can find the names of the textbooks pushing Haeckel's drawings, you would actually protest against the people promoting those textbooks?

I certainly would.

 

[Markus6]

You mean to tell me that if I can find the names of the textbooks pushing Haeckel's drawings, you would actually protest against the people promoting those textbooks?

Of course. Though my membership to "The Evil Atheist Conspiracy to Use Lies to Support Evolution Society" (EACULSES) might get revoked.

 

[HannahBanana]

Of course. Though my membership to "The Evil Atheist Conspiracy to Use Lies to Support Evolution Society" (EACULSES) might get revoked.

Thankfully I don't have a subscription to that society yet, since I'm a "new atheist" and all. LOL.

 

[WileyCoyote]

Of course. Though my membership to "The Evil Atheist Conspiracy to Use Lies to Support Evolution Society" (EACULSES) might get revoked.

Please note that I didn't say that ALL Atheists use lies to support evolution.

 

[none the wiser]

There are nice atheists and atheists that are jerks, just like every other type of person.

As to whoever said they wish the "atheist missionaries" would go away, you should know we wish the same of evangelizing Christians I like the live and let live type of Christian (or any other religion)...the kind that realizes beating someone over the head with a Bible isn't the way to win anyone over, and that we're competent adults making our decisions. Can't force anyone to do anything.

I must say I do have a bit of a problem with people who believe evolution is a lie and really don't know that much about it... One of the best courses I took over my college years.

 

[Rhamiel]

the thing I do not like about atheists, is they pretend their belief system is more logical. If there was a super good case for either belief or disbelief in religion then we would all follow the same belief system.

 

[none the wiser]

the thing I do not like about atheists, is they pretend their belief system is more logical. If there was a super good case for either belief or disbelief in religion then we would all follow the same belief system.

I agree. But the part that atheists find illogical is faith, I'd estimate. I do myself, honestly I'm not saying faith is good, or bad...that's not this discussion...but faith is not a logical concept.

 

[HannahBanana]

the thing I do not like about atheists, is they pretend their belief system is more logical. If there was a super good case for either belief or disbelief in religion then we would all follow the same belief system.

What's so illogical about atheism?

 

[Rhamiel]

the idea that space-time has always existed or the idea that space-time spontaneously self formed, neither one of these athiestic ideas are logical

look at it this way, right the presant is like the end of an equation, the events of the past add up to equal now, so if the universe is infinitely old then you could never go back to the begining of the equation, and if you can never get from the presant to the begining (since there is no begining, infinitely old universe) then you could never get from the begining to now.
This was a popular idea among athiests, the infintely old universe, untill I think around the late 1950's when the Big Bang theory became more popular.
Now the idea that nothing happened, then the Big Bang happened goes agianst the nature of the principle of causality, you could say there was a universe before this one, that imploded in on itself and that caused the Big Bang, but that brings us back to the logical problems with the Infinite Universe.
I look at atheism as a belief system the same as any religion, and I do not think we pick religions for totaly logical reasons. I think if everyone rest only on logic we would all be some form of Deism or agnostic.

 

[Rhamiel]

like i said before, I really like your avatar

 

[Forealzchola]

They are not all bad people..there are atheists which simply dont believe in God and there are atheists that are really mean and rude and that will attempt to degrade, harass , assault anyone or anything associated with God

 

[Allegory]

I saw this topic and I'm like "I bet an atheist started this". And lo, I was right.

 

[Allegory]

They are not all bad people..there are atheists which simply dont believe in God and there are atheists that are really mean and rude and that will attempt to degrade, harass , assault anyone or anything associated with God

I don't think I've heard too many reports of people being assaulted by atheists because they believed in God. I've heard plenty of stories from the other direction, though.