Why the religion of Atheizum?

916 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jeff Vella Leone's picture
If you want to heave a laugh:
Chuck Rogers's picture

If you read the Bible you will see that the animals came in unto Noah, who was already in the Arc. I would say that Noah did what He could to gather some of them up, but as I know that when God wants me to do something, I do what I can and He takes care of the rest.
God would have no problem having all the animals there when Noah went in. And things were different before the flood, animals got along with each other, so they didn't have to be scattered. And one day after the tribulation period the lamb and lion will eat grass together. That's when there will be true peace on earth. Wouldn't you like there to be true peace on earth?

Nordic Fox's picture
Peace on Earth?

Peace on Earth?

Your own 'savior' claims he brings not peace, but a sword!

Chuck Rogers's picture
Travis Paskiewicz

Travis Paskiewicz

(First, some organisms that are alive today haven't evolved much. They're called living fossils, and they have been known about for a very long time. But I'm glad to see that you have pointed out a very well known occurence in evolution with your examples of gall mites and acorn worms. There are other exampless including horse shoe crabs, coelicanths, an cyano bacteria. Sometimes certain organisms have reached an evolutionary apex, in which no change is required for long periods of time. This can occure for several reasons, first being there is no environmental change or there is no significant change in competition. Acorn worms and gull mites may be the two most recent examples. Cyano bacteria themselves are considered one of the "pioneer" life forms that helped terrascape earth. They are the oldest known organism clocking in at 3.5 billion years old.)

Very convenient for evolutionists. When they find some fossils and don't know they are still alive until after they make their claims, they then conveniently make up something else to save face.

(Second, the "Cambrian Conundrum" as you explained it... you clearly have no idea what the fuck your talking about. The Molecular Clock you speak of is a highly conditional mathmatical theory. It works by calculating how many generations, or reproductions, it takes to neutralize a new gene among a population to have a distinctly new trait. It works with time generalizations, i.e one period is twice as long as the last. It does not give concrete dates, and is only useful if campared against known occurences to postulate a possible time frame for an earlier one.)

They have to change that clock according to what they find? So in other words it's bogus. I believe that is what the article was saying.

(Second, why are you talking about Noah's arc? That story has so many holes in it it isn't funny. But just for the sake of arguement, I'll list them. There isn't any geological evidence for a world wide flood. Flooding is in the oral traditions of many cultures because the earest cultures sprang up around rivers and are known as the "River Civilizations". So yes, they all undoubtedly feared destructive accessive flooding in thier respective areas. Even for the amount of known animals alive today, you would need a boat the size of a large island to feed and water two of every animal for 40 days. Getting every animal in the time frame is impossible. Many of the animals, especially the ones in the americas, would have had to swim across an ocean, with no food or water to get on the arc. The ocean journey would undoubtedly be longer than 40 days they needed on the boat to survive the flood anyways. Did I miss anything?)

First and I will only have one second lol.

Lmale brought up the subject of the Arc, as a debate issue. it may have been in one of the articles, but that wasn't the reason for posting the article. Though a true statement.

Second, your wrong about the Arc. There's no proof that the Earth was covered by oceans before the flood, like there is today. Did you know that most of Florida has a fresh water aquifer under it. I believe that before the flood there were a lot of things different than today. Including that most of the water we see today was under ground, and as a layer of frozen water between space and the atmosphere. There are a lot of things to back that up. Including things about dinosaurs. I couldn't tell you right off who all has written about this, but if you really want to look into it I believe you could find some info on this subject. And that is that dinosaurs couldn't servive in the atmosphere that is on Earth today. It's because their nostrils and lungs are too small. They need more oxygen and higher pressure for them to breathe enough.
I believe things were different before the flood. Do you know that most bugs breathe through their bodies? Do you know that there has been some mighty big bugs found? Do you know that our atmosphere couldn't sustain them today? I believe things were different before the flood.
Do you know that God is smart enough to have the animals on the Arc to go into it as little babies. They would have eaten a lot less food than the big ones don't you think.
Also you do know that there is sedimentary rock all over the world right? Even on top of My. Everest. Did you know that there have been found on the top of some mountains, clams? Did you know in at least one location, though I don't recall what mountain, I can look it up if you don't want to, there was found a huge number of whole clams that were piled 10' thick? I wonder how they got there when it is hard to find a whole clam on the beach?

Travis Paskiewicz's picture
Yes, the molecular clock is a

Yes, the molecular clock is a generalist assumption. Many things can occure to make it innacurate. It's why if you read up on it even on wikipedia, it lists some examples of situations which can make its predictions false. "Population bottle necking" which is when a population of organisms shrinks to the point that inbreeding occures on a regular basis, can kick start a speed up of extreme mutations. Or alternatively, extremely mobile populations such as birds, can migrate to new habitat rather than evolve to new conditions.

However, your assessment of evolution explaining living fossils off instead of accepting them as proof of creationism is a horrendous one sided attack.

I noticed that after doing some research on your clams on the mountain, you forget to mention that the majority of them were EXCAVATED, as in they had to be dug out of the mountain. And as opposed to the two scientific processes we know occure you conveniently ignore. It's a well known that plate tectonics force land upwards to create mountains, while erosion from wind and water wears them down. It's often been theorized that this is why marine life is found inside mountains. But no, the best answer is not the processes we know occure, but a wild and evidence-less speculation that the entire earth was covered in water that conveniently dissapears.

Evolution makes the concession that in some cases and scenarios, certain organisms are well suited to conditions, and do not change. Those that are not die off or evolve. And much of the evidence supports this as reasonably correct. Let me explain.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of fossils that are easily identifiable as their own species. Evidence suguests that there we multiple mass extinctions. This is generally agreed to because at certain periods in time, large amounts of species seem to dissappear from the fossil record. That is to say they (the vast majority of species) occured before, but not after the event. Then a very select few species survive into the next period. This five distinct times. So we'll drop evolution for the moment.

Based on the fact that in each time perion before a mass extinction, there are a good majority of species that occure neither before the previous extinction, or after the one that marks the end of a particular period. That is in laymens terms, each time period has its own set of distinct animals that existed only then, not before or after. But I'm tired of defending evolution. Here's my challenge to you chuck.

Your theory says that god created everything. And that many of them were here from the begining. So why is there no evidence that humans or any other distinctly Holocene species such as horses or bears, appear alongside say, the dinosaurs in the Mesozoic or Paleozoic? And how do you explain the five mass extinctions themselves? You got one flood. Explain.

Chuck Rogers's picture
Travis, ask yourself this.

Travis, ask yourself this.
1 So why use something that is inaccurate?
It just shows that evolutionists will use whatever they believe will give their writings some kind of sprucing up, to make it sound more credible. Even though they know it's not accurate. So it is only useful for those who are gullible, or for those that don't want to question and look into just how truthful or accurate the claims that someone makes. Because it gives them the excuse that they can continue to do things that are wrong. They can believe that there is no consequences, so they will continue in their ways.

2. You say I'm one sided, that's funny. I have looked at many things that evolutionists claim proves evolution. But I have not seen one thing that can't be refuted.
Now on the other side, you won't accept anything of the Bible because it has miracles in it that can't be explained, outside of God, in whom you don't want there to be. But those are the very things that show evidence of Him. And yet they are not all that there is, because we have miracles still today. And the existence of the universe is one of those miracles. You believe in an explosion that creates. Though there has never been a natural explosion that has ever been proven to create, but only destroy. But yet I'm the one that is one sided, hum?

3. The majority had to be excavated? On any of those I wonder how deep they had to go? Also that means not all of them. Also you can find sedimentary rock all over the world. Did you know that there is a place in Texas were there is a large amount of limestone which is a sedimentary rock, and a large piece was broken off and washed away during a small flood, and underneath it was footprints. Those footprints are of two different creatures, man and dinosaur. And not only was there man's footprint on top of the dinosaurs footprint but also the evidence is clear that some of the dinosaurs footprints are over the man's footprint. How awesome is that? Did you know you can look that up and best of all you can even go and look at it yourself.
Also it is a really amazing thing that tons of Clams could remain intact as this so called tectonic plates really happened. Did you know that if California moved on inch into the ocean in a quick way as in an earthquake, that it would cause a tidal wave that would travel around the world and destroy most of life on earth?
The water didn't disappear, the ground were the oceans are now simply sank and now holds most of it.

The rest of what you say can be refuted also but for now I will leave you with the above, because I have things I have to do. Talk to you later.

Nyarlathotep's picture
You know those footprints are

You know those footprints are fakes, right? Even the died in the wool creationists accept that now:

doniston's picture
I am responding to your very

I am responding to your very first post in this thread. I believe you got the wrong mpression from some of the atiestsyou have encountered. Ahteism in itself is Not a religion, those that are atheists, such as muself can have a religon of a sort. My so--called God is environmental nature. and I do not believe we sprang from nothingless. I, and no other person will ever know how, but I am convinced it is a thing, not a person God who created us. as for never finding out,? it is just one of three special questions which we will never learn the answer because it is similar to infinity. what created the act that created us, and then what created the act that created the act that created us, and then what ----- I'm sure you can see what I mean. it is a neve endin stream of what created ----or if yu wish, what caused ---- ?

Chuck Rogers's picture
Why is it so hard for people

Why is it so hard for people to understand that God did not have to have a beginning, He is God!

Zaphod's picture
Why is it so hard for people

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the universe did not have to have a beginning, its the universe.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
It is more like:

It is more like:
Why is it so hard for people to understand that the Flying Spaghetti Monster did not have to have a beginning, its the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!

Chuck Rogers's picture
Because the universe is made

Because the universe is made up of matter, God is a Spirit.

I'm glad you decided to keep debating.

Lmale's picture
Yea i brought up noah for a

Yea i brought up noah for a few reasons.
Creationism is chucks version to replace evolution, creationism requires noahs story to be true and its not. Like i said it was stolen from ancient babylon when the jews were in exile there. Not to mention all the neccesary acts of magic that would be required.
Chuck has point blank ignored every piece of evidence that supports most cases refusing to even click links so i figured pointing out why his fairytale is not possible he would a lose his shit and make up some excuses and b demonstrate his ignorance of other sciences like plate tectonics geology geography archeology giving us a laugh.
Ive seen him claim mountains proved the flood before knew he would again.
Oh by the way it wasnt 40 days the earth was supposed to be covered in water it was supposed to be up to a depth kilometers above everest and a year passed before the flood was supposedly flushed out (creating the grand canyon according to chuck. Just ignore the little detail that geology told us how the grand canyon was made) all plant life (including water based from pressure and lack of sunlight) would have died (coral too and they take millions of years to make a reef) leaving nothing for the 'vegetarians' (who cant actually digest plant matter) to eat.

ex-christian_atheist's picture
You know, I really don't like

You know, I really don't like when atheists try and use Noah's ark to try and disprove Christianity. Yes, it makes no logical sense and is not really possible....but that's the whole point of a miracle. It is essentially the same as arguing that the Bible is false because Jesus fed 5000 with a few loaves and fish. The whole point of the event being spectacular was that it was not physically possible. It doesn't disprove Christianity, it is just a silly sotry. But still technically possible given that God magicked everything into place.
Basically the way I was taught Noah's Ark in church (as an adult, not the kid's version) was that everything involved was a miracle, and the only reason Noah was involved was to test his faith. It was the same as testing Abraham's faith with Isaac. If he believed God and put in the work of building the ark even in the face of temptation from the rest of the evil people in the world, then and only then would he actually be allowed to survive the flood. It was basically his way of paying the ticket. Everything else would have happened with or without Noah, and would just be a miracle. It is no more full of holes than any other miracle claim. Of course it defies the laws of nature, what would you expect from a story book about a magic God?

Chuck Rogers's picture
Not like the magic of

Not like the magic of something from nothing!

Lmale's picture
Something from nothing that

Something from nothing that old crap again.
Im going to spell it out one last time.
The big bang theory does NOT claim anything at all about how the universe was born only how it grew.
I tried to dumb it down for you as much as i could.

doniston's picture
Sorry, but you don't sound

Sorry, but you don't sound like an ex-Christian, not if you still believe in the impossible miracles. (unless you no longer believe the miracles happened.)

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
don, she is just saying that

don, she is just saying that Christians believe in miracles, so for them it is possible since they consider the unlikely as a very likely thing especially if THEIR god is involved.

doniston's picture
please let her speak for

please let her speak for herself she doesn't need you as a spokesperson.

ex-christian_atheist's picture
He is correct. I do not

He is correct. I do not believe miracles have ever happened.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
and she doesn't need you

and she doesn't need you being a complete idiot in misunderstanding what other people are saying either,
I ignore you for that reason.

You lack basic IQ to even understand what is being discussed.

Chuck Rogers's picture
So I'm still wondering how

So I'm still wondering how dinosaurs and large insects were able to breathe in an atmosphere as ours?

Lmale's picture
Roflmao you are showing your

Roflmao you are showing your ignorance you should be aware our atmosphere changed over time. This has been proved by evidence. When big insects existed they existed because the atmosphere was different it had much more oxygen.

Chuck Rogers's picture
Not only would they need more

Not only would they need more oxygen but also more pressure. So how could there have been more oxygen and pressure, Lmale?

doniston's picture
oxygen is explained and

oxygen is explained and understood, but why would they need more pressure? we can survive with less pressure simply by changing altitudes.

Chuck Rogers's picture
Because of the size of their

Because of the size of their nostrils and lungs compared to their overall size. A t-rex wouldn't be able to move very fast or very far without getting out of breath quickly. Therefore it wouldn't survive. Nor any of the other large dinosaurs. They pretty much all had the same problem.

CyberLN's picture
What part of Lmale's post

What part of Lmale's post about oxygen levels didn't you get?

Chuck Rogers's picture
Do you know most of the

Do you know most of the oxygen produced is from the oceans. So even with all the deforestation happening there really isn't any noticeable difference from say 100 years ago. How were things so different 40 million years ago. Were there more oxygen producing plants? What produced all the extra oxygen, and what kept it around the Earth in higher amounts? What changed that caused it to thin out? Did the Earth loose some of its gravity or something? What exactly changed?

CyberLN's picture
Chuckster, I am neither your

Chuckster, I am neither your library nor your personal search engine. Get up off your duff and look the answers up for yourself. If your intention is to debate, then consider coming to the table with things that do not have more holes in them than Albert Hall. Because, really, dude, you are providing so many people with a perfect example why so many religious folks aren't taken seriously and are snickered at.

Chuck Rogers's picture
The problem is you nor anyone

The problem is you nor anyone else has the answer. Just like they don't have a true answer for gravity either.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.