@Chicken Re: "Tell me then, if our atmosphere is so great, why does heat energy escape from the Earth?"

*yelling back over shoulder*... Hey, luke(warm)! Don't worry, I've got this one for you!.... *back to Chicken*....

Really? Don't be so silly, dude. Like I said, NOTHING ever escapes from our atmosphere. And nothing ever enters it. All those things people see falling from the sky that "scientists" call meteorites are nothing more than all the stuff that is TRYING to escape the atmosphere collecting up there until it clumps together big enough and heavy enough for it to fall back to Earth. Wow! This stuff is SO obvious! Ain't yew never learnt nuthin' in skool?

*back over shoulder*... There ya go, luke(warm). That's handled. You can move on to more important matters. I've got your back!

lukewarm: "I have it simplified here:"

Now why did you go and do that. I cannot understand simplified. It must be sufficiently over-complicated else I cannot undertand you. But let's see what you got.

lukewarm: "-Every organism that exists, eats; therefore, the first organism had to have eaten."

Nope. Not even close. Go and study up on paleogeology.

lukewarm: "-Even if the source of food was sunlight alone, the organism must undergo photosynthesis to create usable energy."

Yep. First one correct. 1 for 2.

lukewarm: "-Photosynthesis is a process by which sunlight is turned into energy to be used by an organism. The instructions for this process are found in the organism’s genes."

Got first point partially correct. Second point: wrong. Go study up on microbiology and genetics. That's 1½ out of 4.

lukewarm: "-The encoded information found in genes is as complex, if not more complex than a 300 page book."

Yep. Actually it would take about 816,326 pages of text. And it is NOT complex, just detailed. What is complex is manipulating it. And nature does just fine doing so. 2½ out of 5.

lukewarm: "-In order for naturalist’s theory of the origins of life to happen, complex genes would have had to spontaneously create themselves in some manner."

Nope. Not even close. Try studying abiogensis and the Theory of Evolution. 2½ out of 6.

lukewarm: "-The likelihood of this occurring labels this as being conceivably impossible."

Nope not even close. If it even was inconceivably impossible, it did happen. That means it is conceivably possible. 2½ out of 7.

lukewarm: "-Therefore we come upon two points: 1. The naturalist’s theory of the origins of life is not possible. and 2. Intelligence would have had to have been a part of the process."

First point: wrong. Since life did originate, it is not impossible. Second Point: Burden of Proof.

Let's see, that leaves us at 2½ out of 9. That means you scored a 28. Now let's see, my grading scale is A = 91-100; B = 81-90; C = 70-80; F ≤ 69. You failed my son. Perhaps you should go back to school and not skip so many classes this time.

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

That is Latin for, “He who says he does not have the burden of proof lies.” And this is something ALL you Religious Absolutists truly lie about (including you)... Your favorite tactic is to turn the burden of proof around by saying, “Then prove God does not exist.” Pathetic cop-out which only a childish and spoiled brat would resort to in a discussion. Funny how that also describes all Religious Absolutists. Childish, spoiled brats.

Here is actually where the burden of proof lies. You Religious Absolutists claim there is a supernatural super-being who has ultimate-power, ultimate-knowledge, and ultimate goodness (I beg to differ). We Atheists are simply saying, “We do not believe you. Show us the evidence.” Thus, the burden of proof is on you Religious Absolutists.

The burden of proof shall forever lie with those who make the claims about anything. Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.” If you propose the existence of something, anything, you MUST follow the Scientific Method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe your preposterous claims. Hearsay is the worst possible form of any kind of evidence. ALL religious texts are nothing more than 100% hearsay. Thus, I have no reason to believe any religious text as any kind of proof. — synthesized by Arakish

Until you Religious Absolutists can present any hard empirical evidence to support your claims, then your claims shall forever be preposterous, and summarily dismissed. — RMF Runyan

he person making the claim bears the burden of proof. If you are going to claim that scientists are lying, doctors are being paid off, there is a global conspiracy against religion, etc., the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your claim. Just saying it proves nothing, except you possess just enough intelligence to speak. — paraphrased from thelogicofscience.com by RMF Runyan

For us atheists I can solve our part of the burden with four words and one symbol, also know as Arakish's Razor: No Evidence = No Existence.

Similar to, and I include it with Hitchens's Razor: an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it (Wikipedia).

Oh! And quit being so mean to Tin-Man. He does better on this stuff than you could ever hope to.

There, there, Tin-Man. You did better on the test than luke(warm) did.

rmfr