Discussion:
Design vs Atheism
(too old to reply)
A***@yahoo.com
2015-02-22 04:26:11 UTC
Permalink
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.


supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
%
2015-02-22 04:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
no can do
A***@yahoo.com
2015-02-22 04:38:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
no can do
just do, do not try.
%
2015-02-22 04:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by %
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example,
a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget
it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy
island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
no can do
just do, do not try.
but they're such pimple heads
A***@yahoo.com
2015-02-22 04:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by %
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example,
a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget
it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy
island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
no can do
just do, do not try.
but they're such pimple heads
visine gets the red out.
hypatiab7
2015-02-22 06:47:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by %
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
no can do
just do, do not try.
You couldn't even quote Yoda correctly.
A***@yahoo.com
2015-02-22 13:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by hypatiab7
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by %
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
no can do
just do, do not try.
You couldn't even quote Yoda correctly.
no, but I quoted scientists accurately.
b***@m.nu
2015-02-22 15:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by hypatiab7
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by %
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
no can do
just do, do not try.
You couldn't even quote Yoda correctly.
no, but I quoted scientists accurately.
you could not quote fart correctly
A***@yahoo.com
2015-02-22 16:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by hypatiab7
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by %
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
no can do
just do, do not try.
You couldn't even quote Yoda correctly.
no, but I quoted scientists accurately.
you could not quote fart correctly
I'll leave that specialty to you
b***@m.nu
2015-02-22 15:43:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 22:47:40 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by %
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
no can do
just do, do not try.
You couldn't even quote Yoda correctly.
yeah all theists are super good at quoting make believe characters
incorrectly. It is almost like they know the thing they are quoting
doesnt exist and can pretty much say anything and use it as a quote.
Duke has to be the best at it though.
b***@m.nu
2015-02-22 06:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design,
then it would end up exactly like it is today, you fucking moron
A***@yahoo.com
2015-02-22 06:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design,
then it would end up exactly like it is today, you fucking moron
the inability to recognize a faith statement when you utter it
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-24 01:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design,
then it would end up exactly like it is today, you fucking moron
the inability to recognize a faith statement when you utter it
Your stupid faith is basically a delusion without any reasonable basis.
In fact, all religions are thoroughly nonsense, meant to control the weak people and treat them as suckers.
A***@yahoo.com
2015-02-24 03:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design,
then it would end up exactly like it is today, you fucking moron
the inability to recognize a faith statement when you utter it
Your stupid faith is basically a delusion without any reasonable basis.
In fact, all religions are thoroughly nonsense, meant to control the weak people and treat them as suckers.
Jesus taught us not to control people and not to boss people around.
b***@m.nu
2015-02-24 11:12:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design,
then it would end up exactly like it is today, you fucking moron
the inability to recognize a faith statement when you utter it
Your stupid faith is basically a delusion without any reasonable basis.
In fact, all religions are thoroughly nonsense, meant to control the weak people and treat them as suckers.
Jesus taught us not to control people and not to boss people around.
As I have said before your harry potter christ did not teach anything
hypatiab7
2015-02-22 06:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
This has been explained to you many times, as have all your ignorant
rants against science. And the cat genome has been traced and many
feline fossils found. Whether or not you accept this isn't important.
The facts are the facts.

Do you ever wonder why no one here has any respect for you?
Even the trolls don't. They're just using you.
A***@yahoo.com
2015-02-22 07:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by hypatiab7
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
This has been explained to you many times, as have all your ignorant
rants against science. And the cat genome has been traced and many
feline fossils found.
so? you just said that they found cat genome traced to other cats? I agree that cats come from cats.


Whether or not you accept this isn't important.
Post by hypatiab7
The facts are the facts.
Do you ever wonder why no one here has any respect for you?
Even the trolls don't. They're just using you.
what do you mean by that? that you have a sort of small gang like mentality around here?
hypatiab7
2015-02-23 22:44:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by hypatiab7
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
This has been explained to you many times, as have all your ignorant
rants against science. And the cat genome has been traced and many
feline fossils found.
so? you just said that they found cat genome traced to other cats? I agree that cats come from cats.
I can see the smarmy grin on your face. It was expected. Yes. Modern cats come from modern cats, but the fossils also show that they evolved from earlier
ancestors. You ignored what I said about fossils.
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Whether or not you accept this isn't important.
Post by hypatiab7
The facts are the facts.
Do you ever wonder why no one here has any respect for you?
Even the trolls don't. They're just using you.
what do you mean by that? that you have a sort of small gang like mentality around here?
No, I mean that no one here respects you on their own mainly because
you are ignorant and afraid to learn anything new except what you dig
up from creationist web pages. We're all individuals here with no leader.
We all can think for ourselves. You can't. You've been religiously
brainwashed since childhood. That's why you're a troll. You are trapped mentally by your religious beliefs and hate the fact that we are free to
learn and use our minds. You want us to be like you, and it's not going
to happen.
Paul
2015-02-22 13:04:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all.
<...>

Atheism has nothing to do with this. It's science that explains how species evolve. Most Christians accept the facts of science. That you belong to a cult that doesn't allow you to believe in science is your own personal problem.
A***@yahoo.com
2015-02-22 13:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all.
<...>
Atheism has nothing to do with this. It's science that explains how species evolve. Most Christians accept the facts of science. That you belong to a cult that doesn't allow you to believe in science is your own personal problem.
I've yet to seen science explain anything of it, infact, I've read plenty out of secular publications that say science did none of it. for instance, the work of origin scientists (Miller et al) shows that none of them created life after working in the lab. Am I supposed to accept to your word on it?
Paul
2015-02-22 16:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Paul
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all.
<...>
Atheism has nothing to do with this. It's science that explains how species evolve. Most Christians accept the facts of science. That you belong to a cult that doesn't allow you to believe in science is your own personal problem.
I've yet to seen science explain anything of it, infact, I've read plenty out of secular publications that say science did none of it. for instance, the work of origin scientists (Miller et al) shows that none of them created life after working in the lab. Am I supposed to accept to your word on it?
Lie. You've had people post many responses explaining how evolution works. And you've never posted a thing that supports intelligent design.
A***@yahoo.com
2015-02-22 16:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Paul
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all.
<...>
Atheism has nothing to do with this. It's science that explains how species evolve. Most Christians accept the facts of science. That you belong to a cult that doesn't allow you to believe in science is your own personal problem.
I've yet to seen science explain anything of it, infact, I've read plenty out of secular publications that say science did none of it. for instance, the work of origin scientists (Miller et al) shows that none of them created life after working in the lab. Am I supposed to accept to your word on it?
Lie. You've had people post many responses explaining how evolution works. And you've never posted a thing that supports intelligent design.
link to one and I'll show how it is not.
hypatiab7
2015-02-23 23:01:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Paul
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Paul
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all.
<...>
Atheism has nothing to do with this. It's science that explains how species evolve. Most Christians accept the facts of science. That you belong to a cult that doesn't allow you to believe in science is your own personal problem.
I've yet to seen science explain anything of it, infact, I've read plenty out of secular publications that say science did none of it. for instance, the work of origin scientists (Miller et al) shows that none of them created life after working in the lab. Am I supposed to accept to your word on it?
Lie. You've had people post many responses explaining how evolution works. And you've never posted a thing that supports intelligent design.
link to one and I'll show how it is not.
Why don't you link to one that you think will support you and we'll
let you know.
Andrew
2015-02-22 21:02:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
You've had people post many responses explaining how evolution works.
Can you cite a single one where fantasy was not required to
make their case? No, you cannot. Therefore your theory is
wholly dependent upon fantasy. You have been deceived.
Paul
2015-02-22 21:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Paul
You've had people post many responses explaining how evolution works.
Can you cite a single one where fantasy was not required to
make their case? No, you cannot.
Here's one from Scientific American:

"Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day."

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/12/18/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
Post by Andrew
Therefore your theory is
wholly dependent upon fantasy. You have been deceived.
Your ignorance is not science's problem.
Andrew
2015-02-23 02:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Andrew
Post by Paul
You've had people post many responses explaining how evolution works.
Can you cite a single one where fantasy was not required to
make their case? No, you cannot.
"Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a
straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split,
and we continue to see species diverging every day."
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/12/18/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
Speciation is an important factor that is in the creation model of origins. But speciation
occurs only within its taxonomic rank (genus) and involves no new genetic information
of the sort needed for a reproducing organism to come outside of its genus, taxonomic
rank.
Paul
2015-02-23 04:19:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Paul
Post by Andrew
Post by Paul
You've had people post many responses explaining how evolution works.
Can you cite a single one where fantasy was not required to
make their case? No, you cannot.
"Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a
straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split,
and we continue to see species diverging every day."
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/12/18/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
Speciation is an important factor that is in the creation model of origins.
Oh? Where is that mentioned in the Bible?
Post by Andrew
But speciation
occurs only within its taxonomic rank (genus) and involves no new genetic information
of the sort needed for a reproducing organism to come outside of its genus, taxonomic
rank.
A claim that you have never supported.
Andrew
2015-02-23 05:04:36 UTC
Permalink
<>
Post by Paul
speciation occurs only within its taxonomic rank (genus) and
involves no new genetic information of the sort needed for a
reproducing organism to come outside of its genus, taxonomic
rank.
A claim that you have never supported.
It is supported by real world observation and
never shown to be otherwise. However it has
been fantasized to be otherwise, and believed
to be so by our gullible Darwinist friends.
Paul
2015-02-23 11:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
<>
Post by Paul
speciation occurs only within its taxonomic rank (genus) and
involves no new genetic information of the sort needed for a
reproducing organism to come outside of its genus, taxonomic
rank.
A claim that you have never supported.
It is supported by real world observation and
never shown to be otherwise. However it has
been fantasized to be otherwise, and believed
to be so by our gullible Darwinist friends.
It's refuted by genetic studies.
Post by Andrew
Speciation is an important factor that is in the creation model of origins.
So again, where is that mentioned in the Bible?
Andrew
2015-02-23 22:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Andrew
<>
Post by Paul
speciation occurs only within its taxonomic rank (genus) and
involves no new genetic information of the sort needed for a
reproducing organism to come outside of its genus, taxonomic
rank.
A claim that you have never supported.
It is supported by real world observation and
never shown to be otherwise. However it has
been fantasized to be otherwise, and believed
to be so by our gullible Darwinist friends.
It's refuted by genetic studies.
No.
Smiler
2015-02-24 03:25:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
<>
Post by Paul
speciation occurs only within its taxonomic rank (genus) and
involves no new genetic information of the sort needed for a
reproducing organism to come outside of its genus, taxonomic
rank.
A claim that you have never supported.
It is supported by real world observation and never shown to be
otherwise. However it has been fantasized to be otherwise, and
believed to be so by our gullible Darwinist friends.
It's refuted by genetic studies.
No.
Again, you dishonestly snipped:
[> Speciation is an important factor that is in the creation model of
[> origins.

[So again, where is that mentioned in the Bible?]

Your refusal to answer shows, once again, that you are a liar, Androol.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Tom McDonald
2015-02-23 21:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
<>
Post by Paul
speciation occurs only within its taxonomic rank (genus) and
involves no new genetic information of the sort needed for a
reproducing organism to come outside of its genus, taxonomic
rank.
A claim that you have never supported.
It is supported by real world observation and
never shown to be otherwise. However it has
been fantasized to be otherwise, and believed
to be so by our gullible Darwinist friends.
What is the orbital period of Pluto? Please give the number in years,
and tell us the real-world observation that proves it.
Tom McDonald
2015-02-23 21:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Paul
Post by Andrew
Post by Paul
You've had people post many responses explaining how
evolution works.
Can you cite a single one where fantasy was not required to
make their case? No, you cannot.
"Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one
has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a
straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our
lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species
split, and we continue to see species diverging every day."
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/12/18/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
Speciation is an important factor that is in the creation model of origins.
Post by Paul
Oh? Where is that mentioned in the Bible?
But speciation occurs only within its taxonomic rank (genus) and
involves no new genetic information of the sort needed for a
reproducing organism to come outside of its genus, taxonomic rank.
A claim that you have never supported.
And that isn't biblical. Two unrelated members of the same genus are
seldom interfertile, and even then they do not have offspring (except
perhaps in extremely rare situations) can 'bring forth after their kind'.

Andy is playing fast and loose with his creator; his creator doesn't
like that sort of thing, and has prepared a place for people who engage
in that behavior to go. It's not a nice place, and you can never leave
it or even die and stay dead.
Smiler
2015-02-24 03:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Paul
Post by Paul
Post by Paul
You've had people post many responses explaining how evolution works.
Can you cite a single one where fantasy was not required to make
their case? No, you cannot.
"Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has
ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw
man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to
occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we
continue to see species diverging every day."
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/12/18/
evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
Post by Andrew
Speciation is an important factor that is in the creation model of origins.
Post by Paul
Oh? Where is that mentioned in the Bible?
But speciation occurs only within its taxonomic rank (genus) and
involves no new genetic information of the sort needed for a
reproducing organism to come outside of its genus, taxonomic rank.
A claim that you have never supported.
And that isn't biblical. Two unrelated members of the same genus are
seldom interfertile, and even then they do not have offspring (except
perhaps in extremely rare situations) can 'bring forth after their kind'.
Andy is playing fast and loose with his creator; his creator doesn't
like that sort of thing, and has prepared a place for people who engage
in that behavior to go. It's not a nice place, and you can never leave
it or even die and stay dead.
Welcome to the Hotel California. :-)
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
hypatiab7
2015-02-23 23:03:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Paul
You've had people post many responses explaining how evolution works.
Can you cite a single one where fantasy was not required to
make their case? No, you cannot. Therefore your theory is
wholly dependent upon fantasy. You have been deceived.
Fantasy is your word. And, from the start it was obvious that you live
in a fantasy world.
hypatiab7
2015-02-23 22:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Paul
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all.
<...>
Atheism has nothing to do with this. It's science that explains how species evolve. Most Christians accept the facts of science. That you belong to a cult that doesn't allow you to believe in science is your own personal problem.
I've yet to seen science explain anything of it, infact, I've read plenty out of secular publications that say science did none of it. for instance, the work of origin scientists (Miller et al) shows that none of them created life after working in the lab. Am I supposed to accept to your word on it?
It isn't that you have yet to see science explain anything; it's more that
you aren't educated enough to understand what you try to read. Now that you've
read the creationist point of view, why don't you try reading some articles from our point of view (that you are capable of understanding), make comparisons and then think about it before you make up your mind. You're getting all your information from one side only. You know that's true. You
need to read more than magazine articles that you can pull out of context comments from.
Christopher A. Lee
2015-02-24 00:48:07 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:53:38 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Paul
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce
results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating - to live,
then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature
produced it all.
<...>
Atheism has nothing to do with this.
The proven serial liar knows this.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Paul
It's science that explains how species evolve.
And this.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Paul
Most Christians accept the facts of science.
Also this.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Paul
That you belong to a cult that doesn't allow you to believe
in science is your own personal problem.
I've yet to seen science explain anything of it,
Liar. We've given him pointers to it repeatedly, as well as explained
it ourselves..
Post by hypatiab7
Post by A***@yahoo.com
infact, I've read plenty out of secular publications that say science
did none of it.
Liar.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by A***@yahoo.com
for instance, the work of origin scientists (Miller et al) shows
Ken Miller isn't an "origins scientist". He's a cellular and
molecular biologist. As such, he accepts evolution because that is the
validated unifying principle of the biological and related sciences.

He also understands the generic side of it , ie the mechanisms that
cause it.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by A***@yahoo.com
that none of them created life after working in the lab.
The proven serial liar has been given Sidney Fox's work many times.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Am I supposed to accept to your word on it?
HE should accept the word of the researchers whose experiments
resulted in simple proto-cells formed by natural process while they
were researching protein formation.

After all, he's been given this link many times...

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
Post by hypatiab7
It isn't that you have yet to see science explain anything; it's more
that you aren't educated enough to understand what you try to read.
And that's being generous.
Post by hypatiab7
Now that you've read the creationist point of view, why don't you try
reading some articles from our point of view (that you are capable of
understanding),
Careful, the moron will "think" that because it's an atheist
explaining it, it's the atheist POV when it's actually the results of
objective scientific research.
Post by hypatiab7
make comparisons and then think
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha....
Post by hypatiab7
about it before you make up your mind. You're getting all your
information from one side only.
There aren't even "sides" - mjust deluded religious fanatics who
imagine bronze age myth and legend are fact, and who are in complete
denial of the state of objectively researched scientific knowledge.
Post by hypatiab7
You know that's true. You
need to read more than magazine articles that you can pull
out of context comments from.
He's a creationist and a fundie - that's what they do.
Andrew
2015-02-22 14:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing
and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all.
<...>
Atheism has nothing to do with this.
It does with the issue of origins.
Post by Paul
It's science that explains how species evolve.
Does science explain how life originated?
Post by Paul
Most Christians accept the facts of science.
Facts of science are not the issue of controversy.
Post by Paul
That you belong to a cult that doesn't allow you to
believe in science is your own personal problem.
Only the gullible believe everything they are told
that comes to them in the name of "~science~".

"The teachers of Darwinism have no limits
except the limit of their fantasies combined
with the limit of the credulity of those who
listen to them." ~ Andrew
Paul
2015-02-22 16:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Paul
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing
and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all.
<...>
Atheism has nothing to do with this.
It does with the issue of origins.
Wrong. The scientists who discovered that fact that species evolve from previous species weren't atheists.
Post by Andrew
Post by Paul
It's science that explains how species evolve.
Does science explain how life originated?
Irrelevant. 200 years ago science science couldn't explain how germs caused disease. Research led to discovery.
Post by Andrew
Post by Paul
Most Christians accept the facts of science.
Facts of science are not the issue of controversy.
Of course they are. Creationists ignore facts that threaten their biblical literalist ideas.
Post by Andrew
Post by Paul
That you belong to a cult that doesn't allow you to
believe in science is your own personal problem.
Only the gullible believe everything they are told
that comes to them in the name of "~science~".
It's good then that educated people don't do such a thing.
hypatiab7
2015-02-23 23:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Paul
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing
and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all.
<...>
Atheism has nothing to do with this.
It does with the issue of origins.
Post by Paul
It's science that explains how species evolve.
Does science explain how life originated?
Post by Paul
Most Christians accept the facts of science.
Facts of science are not the issue of controversy.
Post by Paul
That you belong to a cult that doesn't allow you to
believe in science is your own personal problem.
Only the gullible believe everything they are told
that comes to them in the name of "~science~".
"The teachers of Darwinism have no limits
except the limit of their fantasies combined
with the limit of the credulity of those who
listen to them." ~ Andrew
You're main problem is that you are not defining us as we define ourselves.
Even the dictionary disagrees with you. This is because you live in fantasy
land and are willing to lie to support your unsupportable beliefs.
j***@gmail.com
2015-02-22 13:14:59 UTC
Permalink
If you want to believe you were created by God, go ahead and believe it. You don't need approval from anyone here.
default
2015-02-22 14:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
If you want to believe you were created by God, go ahead and believe it. You don't need approval from anyone here.
If he wanted "approval" he wouldn't be posting to alt.atheism with
spew like that.
--
hypatiab7
2015-02-23 23:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
If you want to believe you were created by God, go ahead and believe it. You don't need approval from anyone here.
He doesn't need to be in alt.atheism at all, except that as a troll,
he craves any kind of attention he can get.
Mitchell Holman
2015-02-22 13:47:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
A***@yahoo.com
2015-02-22 13:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been here. but energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get back. plus, sounds like an perpetual motion engine. or, you can say that because there's design in the universe, because the energy exists, there's a source of energy that is available through another source, the designer who has always existed because it's impossible for useable energy to extend indefinitely into the past in the apparent universe. So there is a designer who has always existed.
Smiler
2015-02-23 01:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been here. but
energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get back. plus, sounds
like an perpetual motion engine. or, you can say that because there's
design in the universe, because the energy exists, there's a source of
energy that is available through another source, the designer who has
always existed because it's impossible for useable energy to extend
indefinitely into the past in the apparent universe. So there is a
designer who has always existed.
Then why can't the universe and life have always existed?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
A***@yahoo.com
2015-02-23 02:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been here. but
energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get back. plus, sounds
like an perpetual motion engine. or, you can say that because there's
design in the universe, because the energy exists, there's a source of
energy that is available through another source, the designer who has
always existed because it's impossible for useable energy to extend
indefinitely into the past in the apparent universe. So there is a
designer who has always existed.
Then why can't the universe and life have always existed?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Life has always existed because God is life. God is living.
Mitchell Holman
2015-02-23 03:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Smiler
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way
to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing
and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all
happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that
were the case atheists should be able to look at any life form,
say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved
from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from.
if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is
clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to
explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation.
From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets
into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the
atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been here.
but energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get back.
plus, sounds like an perpetual motion engine. or, you can say
that because there's design in the universe, because the energy
exists, there's a source of energy that is available through
another source, the designer who has always existed because it's
impossible for useable energy to extend indefinitely into the past
in the apparent universe. So there is a designer who has always
existed.
Then why can't the universe and life have always existed?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Life has always existed because God is life. God is living.
So:

All living things had a designer.

God is living.

Therefor god had a designer.
A***@yahoo.com
2015-02-23 03:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Smiler
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way
to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing
and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all
happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that
were the case atheists should be able to look at any life form,
say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved
from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from.
if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is
clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to
explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation.
From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets
into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the
atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been here.
but energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get back.
plus, sounds like an perpetual motion engine. or, you can say
that because there's design in the universe, because the energy
exists, there's a source of energy that is available through
another source, the designer who has always existed because it's
impossible for useable energy to extend indefinitely into the past
in the apparent universe. So there is a designer who has always
existed.
Then why can't the universe and life have always existed?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Life has always existed because God is life. God is living.
All living things had a designer.
God is living.
Therefor god had a designer.
"all living things" is presumably said in a context of which the other party is reasonable and understands the meaning. In case such is not the case, a further qualifier is needed, and in this case the words "on earth" should be appended to "all living things,' as in "all living things on earth.'
Tom McDonald
2015-02-23 21:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Smiler
On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 5:47:26 AM UTC-8, Mitchell
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Smiler
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
to produce results indicative of design - for instance
breathing and eating - to live, then atheist are telling
us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it
all. So if that were the case atheists should be able
to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and
tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature
did it then there should be examples where nature is
clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able
to explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full
transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to lungs.
of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget
it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their
fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been
here. but energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get
back. plus, sounds like an perpetual motion engine. or, you
can say that because there's design in the universe, because
the energy exists, there's a source of energy that is
available through another source, the designer who has always
existed because it's impossible for useable energy to extend
indefinitely into the past in the apparent universe. So there
is a designer who has always existed.
Then why can't the universe and life have always existed?
-- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to
order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the
believer.
Life has always existed because God is life. God is living.
All living things had a designer.
God is living.
Therefor god had a designer.
"all living things" is presumably said in a context of which the
other party is reasonable and understands the meaning. In case such
is not the case, a further qualifier is needed, and in this case the
words "on earth" should be appended to "all living things,' as in
"all living things on earth.'
So can we assume you think that any other life we find on other planets,
or elsewhere than Earth, is not designed? Cool!
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-24 01:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Smiler
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way
to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing
and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all
happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that
were the case atheists should be able to look at any life form,
say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved
from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from.
if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is
clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to
explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation.
From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets
into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the
atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been here.
but energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get back.
plus, sounds like an perpetual motion engine. or, you can say
that because there's design in the universe, because the energy
exists, there's a source of energy that is available through
another source, the designer who has always existed because it's
impossible for useable energy to extend indefinitely into the past
in the apparent universe. So there is a designer who has always
existed.
Then why can't the universe and life have always existed?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Life has always existed because God is life. God is living.
All living things had a designer.
God is living.
Therefor god had a designer.
"all living things" is presumably said in a context of which the other party is reasonable and understands the meaning. In case such is not the case, a further qualifier is needed, and in this case the words "on earth" should be appended to "all living things,' as in "all living things on earth.'
Tell us here why your living god cannot create life on moon and Mars?
A***@yahoo.com
2015-02-24 03:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Smiler
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way
to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing
and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all
happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that
were the case atheists should be able to look at any life form,
say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved
from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from.
if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is
clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to
explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation.
From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets
into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the
atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been here.
but energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get back.
plus, sounds like an perpetual motion engine. or, you can say
that because there's design in the universe, because the energy
exists, there's a source of energy that is available through
another source, the designer who has always existed because it's
impossible for useable energy to extend indefinitely into the past
in the apparent universe. So there is a designer who has always
existed.
Then why can't the universe and life have always existed?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Life has always existed because God is life. God is living.
All living things had a designer.
God is living.
Therefor god had a designer.
"all living things" is presumably said in a context of which the other party is reasonable and understands the meaning. In case such is not the case, a further qualifier is needed, and in this case the words "on earth" should be appended to "all living things,' as in "all living things on earth.'
Tell us here why your living god cannot create life on moon and Mars?
the moon and Mars were created for keeping time and for signs.
b***@m.nu
2015-02-24 11:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Smiler
On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 5:47:26 AM UTC-8, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way
to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing
and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all
happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that
were the case atheists should be able to look at any life form,
say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved
from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from.
if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is
clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to
explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation.
From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets
into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the
atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been here.
but energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get back.
plus, sounds like an perpetual motion engine. or, you can say
that because there's design in the universe, because the energy
exists, there's a source of energy that is available through
another source, the designer who has always existed because it's
impossible for useable energy to extend indefinitely into the past
in the apparent universe. So there is a designer who has always
existed.
Then why can't the universe and life have always existed?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Life has always existed because God is life. God is living.
All living things had a designer.
God is living.
Therefor god had a designer.
"all living things" is presumably said in a context of which the other party is reasonable and understands the meaning. In case such is not the case, a further qualifier is needed, and in this case the words "on earth" should be appended to "all living things,' as in "all living things on earth.'
Tell us here why your living god cannot create life on moon and Mars?
the moon and Mars were created for keeping time and for signs.
Stop signs? maybe yield?

hypatiab7
2015-02-23 23:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Smiler
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way
to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing
and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all
happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that
were the case atheists should be able to look at any life form,
say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved
from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from.
if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is
clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to
explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation.
From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets
into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the
atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been here.
but energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get back.
plus, sounds like an perpetual motion engine. or, you can say
that because there's design in the universe, because the energy
exists, there's a source of energy that is available through
another source, the designer who has always existed because it's
impossible for useable energy to extend indefinitely into the past
in the apparent universe. So there is a designer who has always
existed.
Then why can't the universe and life have always existed?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Life has always existed because God is life. God is living.
All living things had a designer.
God is living.
Therefor god had a designer.
The always try to get around this by saying that their god has always
existed. To which we say, what if the Universe has always existed? No
need for a god, then. They never have a response to this. That's the
point where they desperately fall back on blind faith. They have no
answer. This could mean that the Universe contains smaller universes,
but if I brought that up, their heads would probably explode.
Mitchell Holman
2015-02-23 23:45:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Smiler
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way
to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing
and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all
happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that
were the case atheists should be able to look at any life form,
say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved
from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from.
if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is
clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to
explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation.
From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets
into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the
atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been here.
but energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get back.
plus, sounds like an perpetual motion engine. or, you can say
that because there's design in the universe, because the energy
exists, there's a source of energy that is available through
another source, the designer who has always existed because it's
impossible for useable energy to extend indefinitely into the past
in the apparent universe. So there is a designer who has always
existed.
Then why can't the universe and life have always existed?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Life has always existed because God is life. God is living.
All living things had a designer.
God is living.
Therefor god had a designer.
The always try to get around this by saying that their god has always
existed. To which we say, what if the Universe has always existed? No
need for a god, then. They never have a response to this. That's the
point where they desperately fall back on blind faith. They have no
answer. This could mean that the Universe contains smaller universes,
but if I brought that up, their heads would probably explode.
Just try explaining Multiverse theory to
them and watch their heads explode.
hypatiab7
2015-02-23 23:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Smiler
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been here. but
energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get back. plus, sounds
like an perpetual motion engine. or, you can say that because there's
design in the universe, because the energy exists, there's a source of
energy that is available through another source, the designer who has
always existed because it's impossible for useable energy to extend
indefinitely into the past in the apparent universe. So there is a
designer who has always existed.
Then why can't the universe and life have always existed?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Life has always existed because God is life. God is living.
That's you're assumption with nothing to back it up. We demand evidence.
You have none. Faith is not acceptable.
hypatiab7
2015-02-23 23:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by hypatiab7
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Smiler
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been here. but
energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get back. plus, sounds
like an perpetual motion engine. or, you can say that because there's
design in the universe, because the energy exists, there's a source of
energy that is available through another source, the designer who has
always existed because it's impossible for useable energy to extend
indefinitely into the past in the apparent universe. So there is a
designer who has always existed.
Then why can't the universe and life have always existed?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Life has always existed because God is life. God is living.
That's you're assumption with nothing to back it up. We demand evidence.
You have none. Faith is not acceptable.
That should b your, not you're.
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-24 01:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Smiler
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been here. but
energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get back. plus, sounds
like an perpetual motion engine. or, you can say that because there's
design in the universe, because the energy exists, there's a source of
energy that is available through another source, the designer who has
always existed because it's impossible for useable energy to extend
indefinitely into the past in the apparent universe. So there is a
designer who has always existed.
Then why can't the universe and life have always existed?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Life has always existed because God is life. God is living.
A life god that you kneel to worship allowed Christians to be killed daily?
Smiler
2015-02-24 03:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Smiler
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way
to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing
and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all
happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were
the case atheists should be able to look at any life form, say,
for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from
that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if
nature did it then there should be examples where nature is
clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain
the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to
wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets into Mary
Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the atheists live that
fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been here.
but energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get back. plus,
sounds like an perpetual motion engine. or, you can say that
because there's design in the universe, because the energy exists,
there's a source of energy that is available through another source,
the designer who has always existed because it's impossible for
useable energy to extend indefinitely into the past in the apparent
universe. So there is a designer who has always existed.
Then why can't the universe and life have always existed?
Life has always existed because God is life. God is living.
By definition, all living things feed, excrete and reproduce.
What does your supposed god character feed on and where can we find it's
excreta?
Apart from in your book of myths, fairy tales, contradictions, downright
lies, magic spells and bullshit, that is.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
A***@yahoo.com
2015-02-24 03:47:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Smiler
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way
to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing
and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all
happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were
the case atheists should be able to look at any life form, say,
for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from
that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if
nature did it then there should be examples where nature is
clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain
the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to
wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets into Mary
Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the atheists live that
fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been here.
but energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get back. plus,
sounds like an perpetual motion engine. or, you can say that
because there's design in the universe, because the energy exists,
there's a source of energy that is available through another source,
the designer who has always existed because it's impossible for
useable energy to extend indefinitely into the past in the apparent
universe. So there is a designer who has always existed.
Then why can't the universe and life have always existed?
Life has always existed because God is life. God is living.
By definition, all living things feed, excrete and reproduce.
What does your supposed god character feed on and where can we find it's
excreta?
Apart from in your book of myths, fairy tales, contradictions, downright
lies, magic spells and bullshit, that is.
you really need a definition and feel that feeding and excretion is essential to the definition of life?
Post by Smiler
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Christopher A. Lee
2015-02-23 02:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been here. but
energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get back. plus, sounds
like an perpetual motion engine. or, you can say that because there's
design in the universe, because the energy exists, there's a source of
energy that is available through another source, the designer who has
always existed because it's impossible for useable energy to extend
indefinitely into the past in the apparent universe. So there is a
designer who has always existed.
Then why can't the universe and life have always existed?
At least there's evidence for the universe, unlike his imaginary
designer.
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-24 01:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been here. but energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get back. plus, sounds like an perpetual motion engine. or, you can say that because there's design in the universe, because the energy exists, there's a source of energy that is available through another source, the designer who has always existed because it's impossible for useable energy to extend indefinitely into the past in the apparent universe. So there is a designer who has always existed.
So, you don't know what is an energy?

We all can agree that energy is the origin of this universe, but it would not create a creator which in your bird brain assume it can think?
A***@yahoo.com
2015-02-24 03:39:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
you could argue that energy, in useable form, has always been here. but energy turns into heat. heat go away. no can get back. plus, sounds like an perpetual motion engine. or, you can say that because there's design in the universe, because the energy exists, there's a source of energy that is available through another source, the designer who has always existed because it's impossible for useable energy to extend indefinitely into the past in the apparent universe. So there is a designer who has always existed.
So, you don't know what is an energy?
We all can agree that energy is the origin of this universe, but it would not create a creator which in your bird brain assume it can think?
if energy was here indefinitely into the past, then it had to take up every inch of space plus, in the universe. But that's impossible. because energy is finite in useable form, it has to depend on something else for it's existence - something that is eternal.
Andrew
2015-02-22 14:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
This is the default question that atheists like to ask after
they have been exposed to the truth.
Mitchell Holman
2015-02-22 14:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example,
a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget
it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy
island.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
This is the default question that atheists like to ask after
they have been exposed to the truth.
If you don't have an answer just say so.
Christopher A. Lee
2015-02-22 15:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Andrew
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example,
a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget
it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy
island.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
This is the default question that atheists like to ask after
they have been exposed to the truth.
Where "truth" is Christianity's Orwellian newspeak and doublethink for
"lie".
Post by Mitchell Holman
If you don't have an answer just say so.
hypatiab7
2015-02-23 23:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
This is the default question that atheists like to ask after
they have been exposed to the truth.
No. That's the question theists can't answer. Avoidance noted.
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-24 01:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
This is the default question that atheists like to ask after
they have been exposed to the truth.
Every theist we come across has no answer to the question asked.
Some like you chose to side step the embarrassing question.
MarkA
2015-02-22 14:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and
laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case atheists
should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and
tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or whatever
pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then there
should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of course
atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full
transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course
this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the
atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
Here, now! Dr. William Lane Craig will tell you that is a Theologically
Unsophisticated Question! In fact, it's so unsophisticated, that he
can't answer it.
--
MarkA

The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury.
-- Marcus Aurelius
Christopher A. Lee
2015-02-22 15:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design -
Liar.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
for instance breathing and
eating - to live,
Idiot.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all.
Liar.

It is nothing to do with atheism.

Even if that weren't a dishonest caricature designed to be rejected
for emotional reasons by religious fanatics, which the sociopathic
moron repeated where people know better.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from.
Liar. It is nothing to do with atheism.

Even in the educationally backwards US, perhaps ten times as many
Christians as atheists accept the facts of evolution and their
scientific explanation.

The truly pathetic thing, is that he knows this because it has been
repeatedly explained to him since the 1990s, several times a week.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it.
There are. Past and present. He has been given the example of ring
species over and over again, which are species in the process of
diverging, but haven't yet reached the stage where adjacent members of
the ring are no longer co-fertile but the extreme ends are different
species that cannot breed with each other.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation.
The proven serial liar knows it is nothing to do with atheism.

But he can go to the nearest Natural History Museum and see it for
himself.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
A deliberately stupid, button-pushing lie of the kind we see from too
many Christians who consider themselves good people because they are
Christian, but it has turned into horrible people.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by A***@yahoo.com
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
If life was designed then who designed the designer?
When I was eight and my class teacher pulled this bullshit (about the
universe, not just life), I asked if everything was created, who
created her god - I don't think anybody had ever asked her the, and
she muttered something about "You've got to have faith".
default
2015-02-22 14:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
Hey bozo, it isn't about atheism versus design it is about creationism
versus science.
--
Andrew
2015-02-22 14:20:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing
and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the
case atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that
shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is clearly
doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing.
From gills to lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on
their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
Hey bozo, it isn't about atheism versus design it is about creationism
versus science.
Science says that life come only from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.

There is no viable "naturalistic only" origin of life scenario,

True science points to there having been a Creation by an
awesome all-powerful Creator..
GOD
default
2015-02-22 14:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing
and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the
case atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that
shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is clearly
doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing.
From gills to lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on
their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
Hey bozo, it isn't about atheism versus design it is about creationism
versus science.
Science says that life come only from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.
That statement is wrong. In the Middle ages it was an explanation for
how corpses developed maggots, seemingly with no cause. Today science
maintains that it is possible for all life to have a common beginning
from non-living matter.
Post by Andrew
There is no viable "naturalistic only" origin of life scenario,
Of course there is, but you choose to deny it. To you it makes more
sense that an invisible very old man with the body of a 30 year old
weight lifter boomed across the cosmos "Let their be light."

Then he decided bunches of things humans must never do... Like
question his authenticity...
Post by Andrew
True science points to there having been a Creation by an
awesome all-powerful Creator..
GOD
True science? Sounds more like "Religious Truth," from the longest
running con job in history.
--
Christopher A. Lee
2015-02-22 15:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by default
Post by Andrew
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing
and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the
case atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that
shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is clearly
doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing.
From gills to lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on
their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
Hey bozo, it isn't about atheism versus design it is about creationism
versus science.
Science says that life come only from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.
That statement is wrong. In the Middle ages it was an explanation for
how corpses developed maggots, seemingly with no cause. Today science
maintains that it is possible for all life to have a common beginning
from non-living matter.
And the proven serial liar knows this has been demonstrated in the
laboratory, using simple, natural processes.
Post by default
Post by Andrew
There is no viable "naturalistic only" origin of life scenario,
Liar.
Post by default
Of course there is, but you choose to deny it.
He knows there is, because he's been given this link pretty well every
time he's pulled this nonsense...

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

He's lying, and that's all there is to it.

He's even lied about Fox's results so he could dismiss them.
Post by default
To you it makes more
sense that an invisible very old man with the body of a 30 year old
weight lifter boomed across the cosmos "Let their be light."
But treat his as mentally ill for both his delusion and his obsession
with those who don't believe his bronze-age fairy tales, and he just
gets worse.

He's "punishing" us for not accepting his bullshit.
Post by default
Then he decided bunches of things humans must never do... Like
question his authenticity...
The moron can't think outside his religion to realise that there are
hundreds of equivalent beliefs out there, all of which are only taken
seriously by their different religions and nobody else.
Post by default
Post by Andrew
True science points to there having been a Creation by an
Lie.
Post by default
Post by Andrew
awesome all-powerful Creator..
Lie.
Post by default
Post by Andrew
GOD
Lie.
Post by default
True science? Sounds more like "Religious Truth," from the longest
running con job in history.
They have their own Orwellian redefinitions for everyday words, that
stupidity makes them incapable of keeping with their religion.
Andrew
2015-02-22 21:02:07 UTC
Permalink
<>
Post by default
Post by Andrew
Science says that life come only from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.
That statement is wrong.
No, it is a law of science.

Can you cite a single instance otherwise? No.
Post by default
In the Middle ages it was an explanation for
how corpses developed maggots, seemingly with no cause.
Have you ever considered that this is going to happen to you?
Post by default
Today science maintains that it is possible for all life
to have a common beginning from non-living matter.
Although this is not observable, repeatable or testable,
you still call it "science".

The correct word is --> pseudoscience <--.
Post by default
Post by Andrew
There is no viable "naturalistic only" origin of life scenario,
Of course there is..
Please cite such where fantasy is not required to make the
case. You cannot because your myth is wholly dependent
upon fantasy.
default
2015-02-23 00:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
<>
Post by default
Post by Andrew
Science says that life come only from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.
That statement is wrong.
No, it is a law of science.
And where did you derive this "law of science?"
Post by Andrew
Can you cite a single instance otherwise? No.
It is likely that all life came from non-living matter.
Post by Andrew
Post by default
In the Middle ages it was an explanation for
how corpses developed maggots, seemingly with no cause.
Have you ever considered that this is going to happen to you?
I don't dwell on it. What happens to me is only my concern while I am
alive, after I die it is not my problem.
Post by Andrew
Post by default
Today science maintains that it is possible for all life
to have a common beginning from non-living matter.
Although this is not observable, repeatable or testable,
you still call it "science".
Science does not often provide absolute answers. It is a hypotheses
based on observation. Until or unless better information comes along,
it is the hypotheses for the origin of what we call "life."
Post by Andrew
The correct word is --> pseudoscience <--.
Pseudo science is generally regarded as the ruminations of people with
an agenda of some kind who make claims with no supporting evidence, or
logic, or observation.
Post by Andrew
Post by default
Post by Andrew
There is no viable "naturalistic only" origin of life scenario,
Of course there is..
Please cite such where fantasy is not required to make the
case. You cannot because your myth is wholly dependent
upon fantasy.
God is a myth. Science plods along adding information that increases
knowledge and gives a better understanding of nature.

Religion just attributes that which is (currently) unknown to gods.
Can't explain something - just say god done it. But that isn't
science or rational or logical.
Christopher A. Lee
2015-02-23 02:58:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by default
Post by Andrew
<>
Post by default
Post by Andrew
Science says that life come only from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.
As usual, Loonie Andrew lies through his teeth,
Post by default
Post by Andrew
Post by default
That statement is wrong.
No, it is a law of science.
It's a deliberate lie.
Post by default
And where did you derive this "law of science?"
Post by Andrew
Can you cite a single instance otherwise? No.
Loonie, lying Andrew has been given examples from abiogenesis
research.
Post by default
It is likely that all life came from non-living matter.
Which has been demonstrated in the lab.
Post by default
Post by Andrew
Post by default
In the Middle ages it was an explanation for
how corpses developed maggots, seemingly with no cause.
Have you ever considered that this is going to happen to you?
He's psychopathic.
Post by default
I don't dwell on it. What happens to me is only my concern while I am
alive, after I die it is not my problem.
Post by Andrew
Post by default
Today science maintains that it is possible for all life
to have a common beginning from non-living matter.
Although this is not observable, repeatable or testable,
you still call it "science".
Again, loonie, lying Andrew lies through his teeth.
Post by default
Science does not often provide absolute answers. It is a hypotheses
based on observation. Until or unless better information comes along,
it is the hypotheses for the origin of what we call "life."
Sigh.

Loonie, lying Andrew has been given this many times.

And instead of reading it, he found a creationist lie-site that
purported to debunk it - by cherry-picking one of the experimental
cases which failed and ignoring the successful ones.

The experiment is now routine course work at high school level in
places where they don't have the fundamentalists' ideological
objections to something that won't un-happen.
Post by default
Post by Andrew
The correct word is --> pseudoscience <--.
As usual, loonie, lying Andrew lies through his teeth,
Post by default
Pseudo science is generally regarded as the ruminations of people with
an agenda of some kind who make claims with no supporting evidence, or
logic, or observation.
Like Andrew and his fellow creationists.
Post by default
Post by Andrew
Post by default
Post by Andrew
There is no viable "naturalistic only" origin of life scenario,
Lying loonie Andrew keeps repeating this deliberate falsehood.
Post by default
Post by Andrew
Post by default
Of course there is..
The proven serial liar has been given it over and over again, from
abiogenesis research.
Post by default
Post by Andrew
Please cite such where fantasy is not required to make the
case. You cannot because your myth is wholly dependent
upon fantasy.
Lying loonie Andrew can't stop lying.
Post by default
God is a myth. Science plods along adding information that increases
knowledge and gives a better understanding of nature.
The religious fanatics reject it because it doesn't lead to their
imaginary magical superbeing.
Post by default
Religion just attributes that which is (currently) unknown to gods.
Can't explain something - just say god done it. But that isn't
science or rational or logical.
What is truly pathetic is that he has been harassing and haranguing
atheists about something that is nothing whatsoever to do with
atheism.
default
2015-02-23 12:53:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 20:58:52 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
What is truly pathetic is that he has been harassing and haranguing
atheists about something that is nothing whatsoever to do with
atheism.
Well Muslims and Christians think they have a god given permission to
regress unclean pagan sinners to their level...

The Jews think they are better than everyone else and we can never
measure up.
Andrew
2015-02-23 22:12:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by default
Post by Christopher A. Lee
What is truly pathetic is that he has been harassing and haranguing
atheists about something that is nothing whatsoever to do with
atheism.
Well Muslims and Christians think they have a god given permission to
regress unclean pagan sinners to their level...
The Jews think they are better than everyone else and we can never
measure up.
Jesus taught that all are precious in the sight of God.
b***@m.nu
2015-02-23 23:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by default
Post by Christopher A. Lee
What is truly pathetic is that he has been harassing and haranguing
atheists about something that is nothing whatsoever to do with
atheism.
Well Muslims and Christians think they have a god given permission to
regress unclean pagan sinners to their level...
The Jews think they are better than everyone else and we can never
measure up.
Jesus taught that all are precious in the sight of God.
Prove to me that jesus taught anything.... anything at all
Prove to me your jesus could even read......
better yet prove to me that your harry potter christ even lived
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-24 01:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by default
Post by Christopher A. Lee
What is truly pathetic is that he has been harassing and haranguing
atheists about something that is nothing whatsoever to do with
atheism.
Well Muslims and Christians think they have a god given permission to
regress unclean pagan sinners to their level...
The Jews think they are better than everyone else and we can never
measure up.
Jesus taught that all are precious in the sight of God.
And the sight that hurricane Katrina killed many Christians is blind????
hypatiab7
2015-02-23 23:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
<>
Post by default
Post by Andrew
Science says that life come only from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.
That statement is wrong.
No, it is a law of science.
Can you cite a single instance otherwise? No.
Post by default
In the Middle ages it was an explanation for
how corpses developed maggots, seemingly with no cause.
Have you ever considered that this is going to happen to you?
Not if I get cremated first. Please don't bring up your hell. That would
be too stupid of you.
Post by Andrew
Post by default
Today science maintains that it is possible for all life
to have a common beginning from non-living matter.
Although this is not observable, repeatable or testable,
you still call it "science".
Please get an education.
Post by Andrew
The correct word is --> pseudoscience <--.
Post by default
Post by Andrew
There is no viable "naturalistic only" origin of life scenario,
Of course there is..
Please cite such where fantasy is not required to make the
case. You cannot because your myth is wholly dependent
upon fantasy.
He's bringing up abiogenesis again. Trolls have a real thing for that.
They don't understand it and don't want to understand it, but they keep bringing it up.
John Locke
2015-02-23 02:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing
and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the
case atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that
shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is clearly
doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing.
From gills to lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on
their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
Hey bozo, it isn't about atheism versus design it is about creationism
versus science.
Science says that life come only from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.
There is no viable "naturalistic only" origin of life scenario,
True science points to there having been a Creation by an
awesome all-powerful Creator..
GOD
..."True Science" ????...you mean religious pseudo-science which has
been rejected by every credible university and research lab on the
planet.
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-24 01:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing
and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the
case atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that
shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is clearly
doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing.
From gills to lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on
their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
Hey bozo, it isn't about atheism versus design it is about creationism
versus science.
Science says that life come only from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.
There is no viable "naturalistic only" origin of life scenario,
True science points to there having been a Creation by an
awesome all-powerful Creator..
Oh, but your powerful god cannot create Martian, right?
Post by Andrew
GOD
Only the incompetent human would need a god.
A***@yahoo.com
2015-02-22 15:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
Hey bozo, it isn't about atheism versus design it is about creationism
versus science.
--
science is silent on evolution. no fossils, no current forms evolving and no predictions.
b***@m.nu
2015-02-22 15:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
Hey bozo, it isn't about atheism versus design it is about creationism
versus science.
--
science is silent on evolution. no fossils, no current forms evolving and no predictions.
Thats funny, you have proven that deevolution is possible,so that must
mean that the rest of us are evolving, well most of us anyway.
Paul
2015-02-22 16:59:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
Hey bozo, it isn't about atheism versus design it is about creationism
versus science.
--
science is silent on evolution.
Lie. Welcome to Evolution 101: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
Post by A***@yahoo.com
no fossils,
Lie. Welcome to Fossils 101: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/intro.html
Post by A***@yahoo.com
no current forms evolving
Lie. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Post by A***@yahoo.com
and no predictions.
Lie. http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/evo_science.html
hypatiab7
2015-02-24 00:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
Hey bozo, it isn't about atheism versus design it is about creationism
versus science.
--
science is silent on evolution. no fossils, no current forms evolving and no predictions.
Yes, you definitely have changed. Now, you are an outright liar. Your
only excuse is complete ignorance.
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-24 01:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
Hey bozo, it isn't about atheism versus design it is about creationism
versus science.
--
science is silent on evolution. no fossils, no current forms evolving and no predictions.
And science has not embarked on a serious study to find out how sick is delusion to theism.

We do know religion is an evil concept and confined only to the very weak.
A***@yahoo.com
2015-02-24 03:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by default
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
Hey bozo, it isn't about atheism versus design it is about creationism
versus science.
--
science is silent on evolution. no fossils, no current forms evolving and no predictions.
And science has not embarked on a serious study to find out how sick is delusion to theism.
We do know religion is an evil concept and confined only to the very weak.
My denomination rushed over to New Orleans to help, and also to Haiti.
Davej
2015-02-22 17:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though
it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design...
If you were designed by a "loving god" then why did he make you an idiot?
Don Martin
2015-02-22 18:31:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davej
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though
it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design...
If you were designed by a "loving god" then why did he make you an idiot?
Villages across the world were begging for one--his god is
all-providing.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
John Locke
2015-02-23 02:13:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 13:31:55 -0500, Don Martin
Post by Don Martin
Post by Davej
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though
it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design...
If you were designed by a "loving god" then why did he make you an idiot?
Villages across the world were begging for one--his god is
all-providing.
...hmmmm, interesting thought. We could get rid of a whole passel of
trolls and maybe turn a profit to boot ! Wonder what the going rate
is.
Don Martin
2015-02-23 10:49:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 18:13:30 -0800, John Locke
Post by John Locke
On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 13:31:55 -0500, Don Martin
Post by Don Martin
Post by Davej
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though
it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design...
If you were designed by a "loving god" then why did he make you an idiot?
Villages across the world were begging for one--his god is
all-providing.
...hmmmm, interesting thought. We could get rid of a whole passel of
trolls and maybe turn a profit to boot ! Wonder what the going rate
is.
Not very much, I suspect. Villages actually _wanting_ an additional
idiot tend to have poor economies: notice that they were begging, not
offering cash.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Smiler
2015-02-24 03:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Martin
On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 18:13:30 -0800, John Locke
Post by John Locke
Post by Don Martin
On Saturday, February 21, 2015 at 10:26:15 PM UTC-6,
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design...
If you were designed by a "loving god" then why did he make you an idiot?
Villages across the world were begging for one--his god is
all-providing.
...hmmmm, interesting thought. We could get rid of a whole passel of
trolls and maybe turn a profit to boot ! Wonder what the going rate is.
Not very much, I suspect. Villages actually _wanting_ an additional
idiot tend to have poor economies: notice that they were begging, not
offering cash.
Not only that, but idiots aren't self-supporting. The village must feed
and clothe their idiot out of their own pocket. What village would pay to
have that extra burden?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
hypatiab7
2015-02-24 00:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davej
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though
it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design...
If you were designed by a "loving god" then why did he make you an idiot?
Who knows what he'd be like if he had a brain?
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-24 01:32:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davej
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though
it acts in a way to produce results indicative of design...
If you were designed by a "loving god" then why did he make you an idiot?
Oh, but a "loving" god does not want to be surrounded by intelligent human who would not like to live in a tyranny kingdom.
Jørgen Farum Jensen
2015-02-23 07:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
There are thousands of books that explains in great detail
how evolution works.

"The greatest show on Earth is one of them."
--
Jørgen Farum Jensen
"Den rationelle person ved uden at være sikker.
Den snæversynede person er sikker uden at vide."
hypatiab7
2015-02-24 00:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jørgen Farum Jensen
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and
eating - to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance
and laws of nature produced it all. So if that were the case
atheists should be able to look at any life form, say, for example, a
cat, and tell us and show us how it evolved from that shrew or
whatever pre-existing form that it came from. if nature did it then
there should be examples where nature is clearly doing it. And of
course atheists should be able to explain the mechanisms and
demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From gills to
lungs. of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it
all and let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
There are thousands of books that explains in great detail
how evolution works.
"The greatest show on Earth is one of them."
Johnboi wouldn't dare read anything by Dawkins. Just touching the book
would burn his fingers.
Malte Runz
2015-02-24 00:53:57 UTC
Permalink
The Void
Post by A***@yahoo.com
If life is not a product of design, even though it acts in a way to
produce results indicative of design - for instance breathing and eating -
to live, then atheist are telling us it's all happenstance and laws of
nature produced it all. So if that were the case atheists should be able
to look at any life form, say, for example, a cat, and tell us and show us
how it evolved from that shrew or whatever pre-existing form that it came
from. if nature did it then there should be examples where nature is
clearly doing it. And of course atheists should be able to explain the
mechanisms and demonstrate full transformation. From arm to wing. From
gills to lungs. ...
That's right.
Post by A***@yahoo.com
... of course this gets into Mary Poppinsville so just forget it all and
let the atheists live that fantasy on their fantasy island.
It's a deal. You guys stay the hell away from us. Let us invent the future,
go to Mars, create life in lab, cure the sick, learn and get smarter all the
time. You keep praying to your gods to make the cancer go away and have
faith that you won't burn forever after you die if you just kowtow deep
enough when you live. It's a fuckin' deal, Ass'!
Post by A***@yahoo.com
supercallifragilisticexpealladocious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

"... According to the film, it is defined as "something to say when you have
nothing to say"."

Hush now.
--
Malte Runz
Loading...