I'm tired of giving religionists a pass

[AlexBP]

Surely you recall a time when the church burned people at the stake for suggesting that the earth wasn't at the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around it?

I certainly can't recall any such time. I think that you're making this up. Of course you're free to provide a reliable source to back up this claim if you wish, but I think we all know what the odds of that happening are.

 

[Kazenoryu]

Gen 1:15 "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven"

Where does this verse say: "cosmos"? We are talking about the "Firmament of the Heaven". We are talking about the lights in the firmament. Do you know what a "light" is? Do you know what a "firmament" is? Let me give you a clue, the firmament is not the cosmos. They say it is about as thick as the skin on a grape. Perhaps you could do a study on the firmament. A good place to start would be to study the atmosphere of the earth and do a study on how the earths atmosphere effects the light that we see. Of course today is way different then what it was back then. Because the city lights are so bright you almost can not see anything in the firament unless your hundreds of miles from a city. There are very few places left on earth where you can see the sky the way they saw the sky back then. Unless your way out in the middle of the ocean somewhere. Then maybe you could see the lights in the firmament the way they could see the lights back when this was written by Moses 3500 years ago.

You neither explained what the firmament was nor the lights therein.

According to Genesis, The firmament is the portion of water that God took away from earthly water and placed above the sky. Potentially the writer meant clouds, save for the fact they are in the sky, not above it. I have a feeling this was the ancient equivalent to "this is why the sky is blue." Which of course science has debunked and it is light waves dissipating in the atmosphere. A thin protective layer could mean the ozone layer, but that's not water. Ozone only contains Oxygen atoms and not Hydrogen. So either the bible is scientifically inaccurate, or there is something else out there that you know of that science doesn't, in which case I beg you to make it known as that knowledge could earn you a Nobel prize.

The bible also describes the lights in the vault of the sky as being the sun, moon, and stars. We know that the moon is not actually a light, but simply reflects the light of the sun, but I can dismiss that inaccuracy as ancient understanding. The bible says that they are within the vault of the sky which the firmament (the water that was taken away) is on top of.

One could argue that these verses are saying something to the effect of the border of the universe itself is composed of water, but to me it's really suggesting geocentricism. Another idea that science has debunked.

Editing in another response:

I certainly can't recall any such time. I think that you're making this up. Of course you're free to provide a reliable source to back up this claim if you wish, but I think we all know what the odds of that happening are.

While I did not find anything about burning at the stake after a five minute search (I didn't actually search burning at the stake, I looked up Galileo) I did find that Galileo, who started the idea of heliocentricism, was forced to recant his theory, was initially sentenced to formal imprisonment later softened to house arrest, and everything he had written, or would write in the future, was banned.

 

[Davian]

As are Darwinists with the ignorant authors.

Darwinists? What century are you in?

There's no need. Jesus's parables. when understood, cover in essence all the mysteries within various religions.
[BIBLE]"I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world." (Matt. 13:35)[/BIBLE] The Parables of Jesus. Beyond that you're talking clarification and/or redundancy.

Agreed, the bible is hardly original.

You're in the process of using it. Nothing would work without it. For instance, I can survive without a television, but you cannot watch television without life or your body. Soooooo, calm down hm k?

You have not demonstrated that this 'creator' is necessary, exists, or could be one and the same as the 'God' character in the bible stories. So, get back to me on that one, k?

 

[Loudmouth]

..and what standard would that be, given the best you can offer is 100 years of inconsistencies, debated research and changes in thinking.

I would take that a thousands times over dogmatic beliefs that are enforced at the point of a sword, or by threat of a hot date with a stake if you prefer, that conflict with everything we know about the universe.

Why is it that christians get a pass for criticizing the non-dogmatic stance that science takes? Are they really blind to what their complaints really say about themselves?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

God writes on the tablet of your heart. Unless you harden your heart against Him.

(Psalms 51:10-17 NKJV) Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me.

If you want a clean heart (circulatory system), start eating whole foods grown from the ground by the sun. Stop drinking soda, HFCS, and fried food. Reduce animal protein to only 3-4x per week.

 

[AlexBP]

While I did not find anything about burning at the stake after a five minute search (I didn't actually search burning at the stake, I looked up Galileo) I did find that Galileo, who started the idea of heliocentricism, was forced to recant his theory, was initially sentenced to formal imprisonment later softened to house arrest, and everything he had written, or would write in the future, was banned.

First of all, Galileo did not start the heliocentric theory. Many scientists in Europe had already been advancing the basic idea for centuries before Galileo was born. Among the major names in this category:

Jean Buridan, who disproved many of Aristotle's primitive claims about the motion of heavenly bodies and challenged the notion of the earth being unmoving, though it appears he didn't quite propose the sun as the center of the solar system.

Nicole d'Orisme, who more firmly disproved Aristotle's physics and cosmology and first proposed that there was no fixed reference point in the entire universe. Thus he had not only moved beyond the geocentric model in the 1300's, but had also moved beyond the heliocentric model and discovered the first postulate of Einstein's theory of relativity.

Nicholas de Cusa, who wrote copious amounts on a great many scientific topics and argued forcefully for a heliocentric solar system while debunking all of the main scientific arguments for the geocentric model.

And, of course, Nicholas Copernicus, who is most textbooks today is incorrectly credited with inventing the heliocentric model.

All of these people lived long before Galileo, all were Catholics--in fact they were all clergymen, as nearly all scientists were until recently--and none were burned at the stake or otherwise persecuted. Phred was spreading a common myth among Christian-haters when he said that the church burned people at the stake for scientific theories, but it's completely untrue. Neither the Catholic Church nor any other scientific church ever killed any scientist. Only atheists have ever done that. (The first scientist ever to be killed for political reasons was the great French chemist Antoine Lavoisier, a devout Catholic murdered in the purges conducted by secular forces during the French revolution.)

As for the particular case of Galileo, this article gives the best coverage of that topic that I've ever seen. The facts surrounding his case are much more complicated than your summary suggests. Galileo himself was a lifelong, devout Catholic and never objected to the Church's position on scholarship. However, he was also a bit nasty and tended to start fights with other scholars, besides trying to claim credit for what others work. These tendencies eventually got him into heated, almost violent disputes with those other people. The church stepped in and asked him to stop publishing on astronomy temporarily in order to calm things down, and in 1616 he swore an oath to do so. Later he broke that oath and was prosecuted for doing so. However, his books were only "banned" in the city of Rome and were available elsewhere. At the same time, scores of other scholars argued for the heliocentric model freely, so clearly there was no attempt by the Church to shut it down.

 

[Kazenoryu]

I'm sorry, but when a paper comes from the site catholiceductation.org I do need to be a bit skeptical on its stance regarding the catholic churches actions towards someone they disagreed with.

But since your article brought it up, (I am not the invoker of Godwin's law here) you mention only atheists being responsible for deaths of scientists which is untrue according to the article you linked.

I am aware of only one scientist who was sentenced to death by public authorities prior to the twentieth century — when the Nazi and Soviet governments greatly enlarged this number.

Nazi Germany was a Roman Catholic state. Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholic. He was never on record as denouncing that faith and even wrote about doing the Lord's work in this book Mein Kampf.

Soviet Russia was an atheist state, yes, but their atheism didn't drive them into murder. That was anti-theism. Yes, there is a difference. Atheism is just a denial of a claim about a god. Claiming Atheism was what drove Soviet Russia to killing people is like claiming Stalin's mustache was what drove him to murder. You'd actually have an easier time claiming the mustache to balme as that is what he and Hitler had in common.

 

[Freodin]

Nazi Germany was a Roman Catholic state.

Just as a small correction: Germany hasn't been "a Roman Catholic state" since the Reformation. Prussia and the prussian dominated German Reich had been in the majority protestant and so was the Weimarian republic and the Third Reich.

Germany was a christain state though, with an influential church and several treaties regulating the positions of state and church.

 

[Astridhere]

I would take that a thousands times over dogmatic beliefs that are enforced at the point of a sword, or by threat of a hot date with a stake if you prefer, that conflict with everything we know about the universe.

Why is it that christians get a pass for criticizing the non-dogmatic stance that science takes? Are they really blind to what their complaints really say about themselves?

It takes a certain personality type to focus only on the negative aspects of religion and none of the good done by religious charities and missionaries that assist many people you and others would not have the fortitude to attempt. I am most certainly not a Christian, nor a creationist, at the point of a sword. What a ridiculous statement to make.

My points are not complaints but are factual. You can only produce 100 years of flavour of the month as testimonly to evolution. Yet you demand a higher standard of substantiation from creationists than you yourself are unable to provide. The only thing that has remained constant in evolutionary theory is the famous warcry 'it all evolved'. Anything you produce as support today can be challenged or thrown in the garbage bin tomorrow...and you know it.

The obvious demonstration of persons here with an over inflated sense of self importance and self entitlement is astonishing. 'Give creationists a pass' indeed is a phrase coined for self gratification yet moulded from ignorance.

It is not only creationists that say evolutionists are full of myths used as interpretations of the data. It is also alledged by your own reseachers.....
Over the last decade, the mineralogical analysis of small hardy crystals known as zircons embedded in old Australian rocks has painted a picture of the Hadean period “completely inconsistent with this myth we made up,” Dr. Harrison said.
A New View of the Early Earth, Thanks to Australian Rocks - NYTimes.com

Who knows what the truth is when one can pull any rabbit out of a hat to support or challenge any claim made by a theoretical science. The point here being that many evos are quite happy to rip into creationists that cannot supply irrefuteable and substantiated evidence for their claims while you likewise can provide no better. This smacks of hypocrisy and is a triat reflected in many such like threads.


Now there is 'wave theory' that suggests the earth may be at the centre of the universe. This theory challenges Big Bang theory and does not require the use of this mythical dark energy and dark matter that comprises 96% of matter in the universe. Scientists have no clue about dark energy and dark matter other than it makes Big Bang work although the singularity is still an impossibility without more imaginary nonsense such as multiple dimensions.
Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe



Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route


So I can produce research that demonstrates earth is not only at the perfect address in the solar system it is also in the centre of the universe. It does not matter if there are opposers due to the fact that Big Bang makes no sense at the singularity and is still gobbled up by its supporters and taken as factual, regardless of the inconsistencies.

Hence earth, is not an ordinary planet with nothing special going for it. It is a very special planet at just the right address and in the centre of the universe. Earth was created for complex life and is special. Researchers attempts to make earths address resulting from nothing more than luck have failed.

So, in other words, I and other creationists do not need any mythical pass from those that can only refute this evidence with challenged and debated big bang theory that is unresolved and makes no sense without the use of a myth...dark matter & singularities. So are evos going to demand more than they themselves can supply?...My prediction.. of course they will! There would be no fun for evolutionists in threads like this if they were to actually acknowledge the instability of their theories as being worse or at least no better than creationist ones, that have stood the test of time.

Remember in days gone by, before 'real science' earth was thought to be the centre of the universe until some brain 'proved' it wasn't. Now it seems even this assertion is challenged and may revert back to initial thinking and the brains were not so brainy after all.

If anyone needs a pass it is Evolutionists that need a pass of forgiveness for the 100 years of misrepresentations, changed thinking and instability that has been passed off as irrefuteable science, rather than flavour of the month as it should be, to the public.

 

[Phred]

I certainly can't recall any such time. I think that you're making this up. Of course you're free to provide a reliable source to back up this claim if you wish, but I think we all know what the odds of that happening are.

Giordano Bruno.

 

[Loudmouth]

My points are not complaints but are factual. You can only produce 100 years of flavour of the month as testimonly to evolution. Yet you demand a higher standard of substantiation from creationists than you yourself are unable to provide. The only thing that has remained constant in evolutionary theory is the famous warcry 'it all evolved'. Anything you produce as support today can be challenged or thrown in the garbage bin tomorrow...and you know it.

Perfect example of what I am talking about. As evidence comes in our view of how evolution occurred in the past changes, AS IT SHOULD. You think this is a bad thing. Why? Please explain why changing our explanations because of new evidence is a bad thing.

The obvious demonstration of persons here with an over inflated sense of self importance and self entitlement is astonishing.

I know, right? There are actually people here who think that there is some deity, for which they have no evidence, created this universe for them. Even more, they think this deity, for which they have no evidence, actually cares about their day to day lives. Talk about an ego.

They then use this feeling of self importance as an excuse to ignore the evidence and tell everyone else what they should believe. They actually think that stubbornly sticking with dogma is something to be proud of. Can you believe that? They actually look down on people who change their mind when the evidence demands it. Wow, that takes an even bigger ego, if you ask me.

It is not only creationists that say evolutionists are full of myths used as interpretations of the data. It is also alledged by your own reseachers.....
Over the last decade, the mineralogical analysis of small hardy crystals known as zircons embedded in old Australian rocks has painted a picture of the Hadean period “completely inconsistent with this myth we made up,” Dr. Harrison said.
A New View of the Early Earth, Thanks to Australian Rocks - NYTimes.com

Who knows what the truth is when one can pull any rabbit out of a hat to support or challenge any claim made by a theoretical science.

You mean a scientist is challenging a long held theory based on new evidence? HOW DARE HE!!! Oh yeah, that's how science works. Never mind. However, this is the opposite of religion.

So why, again, do you take such pride in stubborn dogmas? Please explain.

Now there is 'wave theory' that suggests the earth may be at the centre of the universe.

This is not taken seriously by the astrophysics community. Nice try though.

So, in other words, I and other creationists do not need any mythical pass from those that can only refute this evidence with challenged and debated big bang theory . . .

There is nothing mythical about the ERV evidence which demonstrates that humans share a common ancestor with other apes. Only someone grasping at straws would call scientific evidence "mythical". All your arguments come down to is trying to make the evidence go away so that you can have an excuse for having none yourself. Sorry, doesn't happen that way.

 

[Phred]

Again, you folks love to derail topics. The topic of this thread is not allowing you to use your god as an alternative to evolution or abiogenesis without any evidence that your god exists.

 

[Phred]

Hey Phred, don't speak so nice about Christians. Your Atheist buddies will think you've gone soft, that your giving us a free pass. Why do you ask "HOW did your god do it"?

To make you face the fact that you believe in magic. You have no method, no way for energy to go from here to there, no process. Just "he created it" without thought. That's why.

You know our answer, He created the universe, but there isn't any proof you would accept, is there?

In this case I'm asking for proof, or rather, evidence... that a god, any god, exists. Not proof that it created the universe, that can come later. Right now I just want some evidence that it exists. I would accept just about anything that is actual evidence and not wishful thinking.

Atheist can't give Christians any proof for, how the universe came into being out of nothing,

What makes you think it came to be from nothing?

how life came from non life

abiogenesis

and how one species evolved into a completely different species.

Evolution is quite clear.

We would like proof not someone's idea of how it might of happened.

You have evidence. You would prefer it didn't exist because you want to believe something else. So you do whatever you can to wave it away, ignore it, call it non-existent and pretend it's not there. All I can say is that a judge was convinced in Kitzmiller v. Dover. That's just gonna have to do.

If you say your absolutely certain it happened you're either lying, stupid, insane or... no that's all.

or literate.

 

[Phred]

How is what these relgious people say different than what the philosophers call The First Cause?

How is what these relgious people say a diferent "kind of logic from a six-year old" who cites philosophy???

If an answer to a scientific inquiry were reasonable to answer with philosophy then... ok. But since it's not you've made my point for me.

 

[Kazenoryu]

Just as a small correction: Germany hasn't been "a Roman Catholic state" since the Reformation. Prussia and the prussian dominated German Reich had been in the majority protestant and so was the Weimarian republic and the Third Reich.

Germany was a christain state though, with an influential church and several treaties regulating the positions of state and church.

Very well, but the point of atheism being behind the whole thing is still flawed.

It takes a certain personality type to focus only on the negative aspects of religion and none of the good done by religious charities and missionaries that assist many people you and others would not have the fortitude to attempt. I am most certainly not a Christian, nor a creationist, at the point of a sword. What a ridiculous statement to make.

It doesn't require religion to be charitable or help others in any way. Not to downplay religion's role in charity, but it is not the necessary factor. Just being an overall decent human being is what's needed.

My points are not complaints but are factual. You can only produce 100 years of flavour of the month as testimonly to evolution. Yet you demand a higher standard of substantiation from creationists than you yourself are unable to provide. The only thing that has remained constant in evolutionary theory is the famous warcry 'it all evolved'. Anything you produce as support today can be challenged or thrown in the garbage bin tomorrow...and you know it.

What can be thrown in the garbage can? Yes there have been fraudulent items put forth, but they are quickly discredited and pushed aside. Many times when creationist evidence is disproven (and I've seen this myself having been to many creation seminars, myself) the one presenting the evidence falls back into rhetoric and fallacy. Making false and just silly claims. To claim that evolution or any field of science should remain as rigid and unwavering as the Bible is silly. Science and understanding bends to the evidence. The evidence isn't shoe-horned into the idea.

Paleontology, Cosmology, Geology, Genetics, and a host of other schools of science have countless volumes of evidence. Yet I have never heard one single shred of evidence for a god. I have heard rhetoric and pleas to emotion. But nothing measurable or demonstrable has ever crossed my path.

The obvious demonstration of persons here with an over inflated sense of self importance and self entitlement is astonishing. 'Give creationists a pass' indeed is a phrase coined for self gratification yet moulded from ignorance.

It is not only creationists that say evolutionists are full of myths used as interpretations of the data. It is also alledged by your own reseachers.....
Over the last decade, the mineralogical analysis of small hardy crystals known as zircons embedded in old Australian rocks has painted a picture of the Hadean period “completely inconsistent with this myth we made up,” Dr. Harrison said.
A New View of the Early Earth, Thanks to Australian Rocks - NYTimes.com

To claim Geology has anything to do with Evolution is like claiming McDonalds has anything to do with Big Bang Theory. (all flatulence jokes aside). Evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life and has nothing to do with the formation of rocks.

Who knows what the truth is when one can pull any rabbit out of a hat to support or challenge any claim made by a theoretical science. The point here being that many evos are quite happy to rip into creationists that cannot supply irrefuteable and substantiated evidence for their claims while you likewise can provide no better. This smacks of hypocrisy and is a triat reflected in many such like threads.

Theoretical science and scientific theories are in no way supported by rabbits being pulled out of hats or any other metaphor for something coming from thin air. Genetics and the fossil record are gorgeous examples of volumes of evidence that provide part of the base for a valid explanation to unify the evidence. That is what a theory is in science. A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena. [from dictionary.com]

Now there is 'wave theory' that suggests the earth may be at the centre of the universe. This theory challenges Big Bang theory and does not require the use of this mythical dark energy and dark matter that comprises 96% of matter in the universe. Scientists have no clue about dark energy and dark matter other than it makes Big Bang work although the singularity is still an impossibility without more imaginary nonsense such as multiple dimensions.
Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe


So I can produce research that demonstrates earth is not only at the perfect address in the solar system it is also in the centre of the universe. It does not matter if there are opposers due to the fact that Big Bang makes no sense at the singularity and is still gobbled up by its supporters and taken as factual, regardless of the inconsistencies.

Hence earth, is not an ordinary planet with nothing special going for it. It is a very special planet at just the right address and in the centre of the universe. Earth was created for complex life and is special. Researchers attempts to make earths address resulting from nothing more than luck have failed.

So, in other words, I and other creationists do not need any mythical pass from those that can only refute this evidence with challenged and debated big bang theory that is unresolved and makes no sense without the use of a myth...dark matter & singularities. So are evos going to demand more than they themselves can supply?...My prediction.. of course they will! There would be no fun for evolutionists in threads like this if they were to actually acknowledge the instability of their theories as being worse or at least no better than creationist ones, that have stood the test of time.

Remember in days gone by, before 'real science' earth was thought to be the centre of the universe until some brain 'proved' it wasn't. Now it seems even this assertion is challenged and may revert back to initial thinking and the brains were not so brainy after all.

That would be a great theory if it weren't true and proven for hundreds of years that the earth is not stationary and therefore cannot be the centre of the Universe, unless this theory also gives ideas as to how the countless galaxies are all gravitationally attracted to and revolve around a moving point.

If anyone needs a pass it is Evolutionists that need a pass of forgiveness for the 100 years of misrepresentations, changed thinking and instability that has been passed off as irrefuteable science, rather than flavour of the month as it should be, to the public.

The problem with this logic is, though, even if evolution were proven incorrect tomorrow morning. If some mind blowing new paradigm came to pass, that in no way validates the existence of God. It has no way validated your claim of a creator. And in fact it would be even more difficult to religiously defeat, something religion has been unable to do in 150 years.

 

[AlexBP]

Giordano Bruno.

Bruno was not a scientist. He was an adherent of Hermeticism, the pop religion of the sixteenth century, and its best known celebrity--basically the same role that Tom Cruise plays in Scientology. As a Hermeticist he believed in magic, clairvoyance, astrology, divination, and all kinds of other things that proponents of science normally hate. Near the end of his life, it seems likely that he went insane and had pretensions of ruling the world.

In 1977, a translation by historian Edward Gosselin of Bruno's main work, The Ash Wednesday Supper, was published. In his introduction, Gosselin notes that most people know little about Bruno and most of what is known is a myth, namely the myth that Bruno was a scientist who was executed for supporting the heliocentric theory. In reality, the book is a piece of mysticism; Bruno never did any scientific research or theorizing. While Bruno did at one point in his life claim to support the Copernican theory, the evidence suggests that he didn't even understand what the theory was about, and he consistently lost scholarly positions after making a fool of himself. While there may be objections to how the Catholic Church treated him on human rights grounds, the case had nothing to do with astronomy or any branch of science.

 

[Split Rock]

My points are not complaints but are factual. You can only produce 100 years of flavour of the month as testimonly to evolution. Yet you demand a higher standard of substantiation from creationists than you yourself are unable to provide.

No we do not. We demand that any position that we take seriously be based on evidence. Evolution has it, you do not.

The only thing that has remained constant in evolutionary theory is the famous warcry 'it all evolved'.

Wrong again. Since Darwin's time, there have been changes to the theory of evolution, yes. That is to be expected, since it would be quite astonishing for Darwin to have gotten everything right and not left anything out. Nevertheless, there are many facets which are unchanged:

1. Common Descent of all life on Earth.
2. Man evolved from earlier apes.
3. Natural Selection as a primary mechanism of evolutionary change.

Anything you produce as support today can be challenged or thrown in the garbage bin tomorrow...and you know it.

Yes, theoretically this is correct. It is highly unlikely evolution will be thrown out, but it is possible. Now, when are you going to give up on Eden mythology?

 

[Split Rock]

Bruno was not a scientist. He was an adherent of Hermeticism, the pop religion of the sixteenth century, and its best known celebrity--basically the same role that Tom Cruise plays in Scientology. As a Hermeticist he believed in magic, clairvoyance, astrology, divination, and all kinds of other things that proponents of science normally hate. Near the end of his life, it seems likely that he went insane and had pretensions of ruling the world.

In 1977, a translation by historian Edward Gosselin of Bruno's main work, The Ash Wednesday Supper, was published. In his introduction, Gosselin notes that most people know little about Bruno and most of what is known is a myth, namely the myth that Bruno was a scientist who was executed for supporting the heliocentric theory. In reality, the book is a piece of mysticism; Bruno never did any scientific research or theorizing. While Bruno did at one point in his life claim to support the Copernican theory, the evidence suggests that he didn't even understand what the theory was about, and he consistently lost scholarly positions after making a fool of himself. While there may be objections to how the Catholic Church treated him on human rights grounds, the case had nothing to do with astronomy or any branch of science.

While I agree that Bruno was executed for theological ideas, and not heliocentric theory, he certainly was a scientist. He was the first to theorize that the sun was a star and that there were many other planets around other stars with intelligent life. Yes, his science was mixed with astrology and pantheism, etc., but that should not negate the science.

 

[TomZzyzx]

To make you face the fact that you believe in magic. You have no method, no way for energy to go from here to there, no process. Just "he created it" without thought. That's why.

In this case I'm asking for proof, or rather, evidence... that a god, any god, exists. Not proof that it created the universe, that can come later. Right now I just want some evidence that it exists. I would accept just about anything that is actual evidence and not wishful thinking.

What makes you think it came to be from nothing?

abiogenesis

Evolution is quite clear.

You have evidence. You would prefer it didn't exist because you want to believe something else. So you do whatever you can to wave it away, ignore it, call it non-existent and pretend it's not there. All I can say is that a judge was convinced in Kitzmiller v. Dover. That's just gonna have to do.

or literate.

Sorry, you have to start at the beginning. You have to establish that the universe was created. You ask, what proof? Let's see, Einstein's theory of General Relativity, Says the universe had a beginning and that it came into being out of nothing physical. After you establish a creator, then you see who has the best evidence for who this creator is, and Christians have the best evidence. Evolution is not clear. Atheist are the ones who have no proof how the universe came from nothing, no proof for "abiogenesis, no proof how one species evolves into a completely different species. "That's just gonna have to do", because you don't have any proof. And you think Christianity runs on faith. Man, I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's see, Einstein's theory of General Relativity, Says the universe had a beginning and that it came into being out of nothing physical.

No, it doesn't. All the Big Bang Theory states is that the universe started as a singularity. A singularity is a something.

After you establish a creator, . . .

Perhaps you can start there.

Evolution is not clear.

Yeah, it is. It is the most well supported theory in science.

Atheist are the ones who have no proof how the universe came from nothing, . . .

We don't need proof since we are not proposing a positive claim. "I don't know" is a perfectly fine placeholder. Christians are making a positive claim. They need to supply positive evidence for this positive claim.

no proof for "abiogenesis, no proof how one species evolves into a completely different species.

There is evidence for both. Abiogenesis has no known mechanism as of yet, but life came from non-life. That much is sure. Even creationists admit this. However, creationists also claim that they know the mechanism by which it came about, so they also need to supply evidence of this mechanism. Christians also claim that species are not related. Where is the evidence for that? Even if there was zero evidence for evolution, creationists STILL NEED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS.

"That's just gonna have to do", because you don't have any proof.

That's the creationist explanation.

Man, I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.

Since atheism doesn't have any positive beliefs you don't need any faith.