Why the religion of Atheizum?

916 posts / 0 new
Last post
Chuck Rogers's picture
Hey Lmale

Hey Lmale
Have you checked out the answers yet?

Chuck Rogers's picture
Lmale or this link really

Lmale or this link really should be looked at by all Atheists.

http://creation.mobi/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils

Chuck Rogers's picture
I would appreciate if any

I would appreciate if any atheists on this site can give me info on were I can go, internet or otherwise, were I can see actual photos of all the so called transitional fossils that have not already been proven to have been tampered with. Is there such a place?

ImFree's picture
http://www.talkorigins.org

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

There is a link on the site that will allow you to email the author to inquire about pictures.

Nyarlathotep's picture
uhhh http://www

uhhh http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

like i said, dumb on purpose

Travis Hedglin's picture
So, your argument for god is

So, your argument for god is essentially that you can't believe evolution can occur?

Chuck Rogers's picture
Travis Hedglin

Travis Hedglin
No that is not my argument for God.
I used to believe in evolution, and my argument against God was that no one could prove Him to be true. But when I saw all the lies in evolution I knew that there was only one other possibility, and thatwas God. Then God saved me by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and what He did to me and for me in salvation is what gives me my argument for God.

Travis Hedglin's picture
No one CAN prove god to be

No one CAN prove god to be true, and even if I could somehow falsify evolution tomorrow(which I can't) that wouldn't actually mean god did it, it would just mean that I didn't know how it happened. I would hope god isn't a simple label you can slap on anything that isn't known, so you can pretend you do, yet never demonstrate anything about it. Answering god when asked how life occurred is like answering blue if I asked what 5+2 is, it is a misdirection. That said, we do have evidence of evolution, but that also doesn't negate a god. Many of our top geneticists believe in evolution AND god, most of the people on the planet that believe in evolution are actually theists. Dr Francis Collins is the director of the human genome project, as devout a Christian as he is, said himself that there could be NO DOUBT that our genes are a product of evolution. ERV's, Atavisms, and simple genetic heredity clearly show that we were not separately and specially created.

Chuck Rogers's picture
Travis Hedglin

Travis Hedglin
For someone to disbelieve God's word, makes me disbelieve they are a Christian. If they claim God's word isn't true, then they are saying God is a liar. And He is not, for He said His word will abide forever.
I would like to see how he proves that our genetics came from some other creature.

Travis Hedglin's picture
They don't take it literally,

They don't take it literally, they take it as metaphor or poetry, and a lot of that does appear in the Old Testament. Hell, there is a book of it that is almost entirely Hebrew poetry. As far as the genetics thing, I gave you three reasons why he might have said it, three things that creationism fails to account for entirely.

Chuck Rogers's picture
Three reasons, who might have

Three reasons, who might have said what?

Travis Hedglin's picture
Three reasons Dr Francis

Three reasons Dr Francis Collins might have said that there could be no doubt that we evolved.

Chuck Rogers's picture
Three reasons he MIGHT have

Three reasons he MIGHT have said. Which to me means you don't know if he said it. And also people can say whatever they want, that doesn't make it true.

Chuck Rogers's picture
Your claim that there is

Your claim that there is evidence for evolution, is just a claim. I don't believe there is any evidence to support evolution. Because it is all easily refuted. If evolution were true there would be an enormous amount of evidence that could not be refuted or that would contradict the Bible unquestionably. So there is not any evidence to support evolution.

Travis Hedglin's picture
Two posts, but I'll try to

Two posts, but I'll try to keep it to the one response.

#1

The speculation isn't over if he did say it, he did, but rather WHY he said it. I gave just three out of at least a dozen reasons why he could have said it, I can't know what reasons he did have, but it is hardly an unsubstantiated claim.

#2

If you mean easy as in, you can just pretend the evidence doesn't exist, I suppose it is easy. There are people who think the Flintstones was a documentary, and sabre-toothed tigers were pets, regardless of the fact that there is absolutely no reason to believe that, and plenty why we shouldn't. The refutations from the religious community about evolution, geology, and cosmology has mostly been proven invalid or patently dishonest. The few genuine challenges that have been raised have been fairly dealt with, without obfuscation, because science doesn't work like creationism. If you want to believe that man was fashioned from mud or clay and brought to life with the equivalent of a golem spell, go for it, but you probably shouldn't pretend that such a thing is scientific in any sense. We see descent with modification, we have genetic evidence that living things are a result of such a process, and more than one person has provided you with the transitional forms you claim don't or can't exist. So, in the end, the conclusion of this conversation will hinge entirely on how honest you can be.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
she is not honest at all, so

she is not honest at all, so you are just wasting your time with her.

Travis Hedglin's picture
I don't know him/her that

I don't know him/her that well, so I will treat him/her as I would anyone else. It takes me little time to write a post, so there is little personal harm in trying to have a conversation.

Chuck Rogers's picture
So give me something you

So give me something you claim proves evolution that can't be refuted.

Travis Hedglin's picture
I have already mentioned

I have already mentioned endogenous retroviruses, so I will give you an article from the National Institute of Health, hopefully any rebuttals or citations you have will be equally credible.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6235/

Chuck Rogers's picture
How many times, how many

How many times, how many times am I going to have to go through this.
That is no more proof of evolution than a long haired dog giving birth to a short haired dog.
That is what you call micro evolution. Not that it is really evolution, any more than simply changes within a kind. We accept that type of change. It is evident in practically every kind of creature.

I guess I should have made myself clearer. Absolutely no one has proof of macro evolution. I apologize for not making my point clear. I shouldn't generalize evolution, because then evolutionists will take any natural tiny change as proof that evolution is true. So again I will make it clear that there is nothing of macro evolution that can't be refuted.
And that is that there is no proof that one kind can change into another!!!!!!!
And there is no proof of millions of years!!!!!!!

Travis Hedglin's picture
You seem to raise two

You seem to raise two objections here. Let me see if I can extrapolate them, if they are in error, please correct them.

1. There is no change outside of "kind".(What is a "kind"?)

2. The Earth/universe isn't millions of years old.

Is this correct? Could you be a little more specific about what a "kind" is?

Chuck Rogers's picture
K-9 is a kind they can inter

K-9 is a kind they can inter bread together. Wolves, coyote, domestic dogs can all bread together. That makes them a kind. They can't bread outside of their kind. Lizards can't bread outside of their kind. Cats can't bread outside of their kind. Birds can't bread outside of their kind.

Evolutionists, or at least many of them claim that lizards turned into birds. Yet there is nothing common between them. Feathers are made of a completely different materials than scales. How do they think this is possible. They can't bread together even in laboratory experiments. So for macro evolution to occur, one kind would have to be able to produce another kind. There is no fossil evidence that hasn't been proven wrong. And there is no evidence in any living creature that shows any evidence that one kind is changing into another kind.

Any yes there is no evidence in the Earth, nor in the universe that proves millions of years.

ex-christian_atheist's picture
You obviously didnt watch

You obviously didnt watch that video I posted which shows the relation between whales and land animals.

Chuck Rogers's picture
Ex Christian-atheist

Ex Christian-atheist
I started watching the video but I will have to rewatch it due to my signal went down.

One thing I noticed was at the bottom of the screen when it was showing the so called whale to land animals and back to dolphin, it said they changed the size to compare the different ones.
I wonder why they didn't show them according to the actual size ratio. I will look deeper into it. And finish watching that video and compare it to the actual bones, if there are some of those he claims with drawings but doesn't show the actual pictures. Also land animals have bones besides their legs that are used for going to the bathroom, and for mating, but yet this guy is suggesting that those bones which are used for those functions on a whale used to be legs. Why did the whales get rid of the bones that would have been for that purpose and start using the bones that used to be their legs? Why not just keep the other bones and drop the leg bones altogether?

Nyarlathotep's picture
chuck rogers "Evolutionists,

chuck rogers "Evolutionists, or at least many of them claim that lizards turned into birds." Lying for Jesus much?

Travis Hedglin's picture
Ok, now we have a starting

Ok, now we have a starting point. Forgive me for making a new post, but our discussion will eventually get three letters wide and a page long if we don't. You seem to be asserting that an animal would have to give birth to something drastically different from itself for evolution to work, but that isn't how it works, and I have a suspicion that you know it. So, let us parse this out a bit.

Anything that cannot breed is a different kind? Panthera and Felinidae are different kinds then, so lions and housecats are different kinds. So, in fact, would apes and monkeys. Sparrows and chickens are also different kinds. According to your definition, there would actually have to be billions of different kinds, despite the fact that we know that they are related. Any idiot with eyes can tell that birds are all related. As far as birds from dinosaurs, let us see where the evidence leads. Let us go back to the first birdlike organism we know of:

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/2175/20130529/new-prehistoric-bi...

It has feathered wings and a tail, yet has legs and apparently no beak, truly a transitional form despite your insistence that they don't exist.

As far as the universe not being old, let us just look to one of the most constant things in our universe, light. There are stars in our universe so far away from us, that they might not even exist anymore despite us still being able to see their light, some of which are so far away that the light(which is a universal constant) takes millions of years just to reach us. If the universe where as young as you imply, we wouldn't be able to see these stars, and there would not be many stars in our night sky. Once again, any fool with eyes can tell that you are wrong.

Chuck Rogers's picture
Travis Hedglin

Travis Hedglin

(Ok, now we have a starting point. Forgive me for making a new post, but our discussion will eventually get three letters wide and a page long if we don't. You seem to be asserting that an animal would have to give birth to something drastically different from itself for evolution to work, but that isn't how it works, and I have a suspicion that you know it. So, let us parse this out a bit.)

Your assessment is a little off. I don't require that, (an animal would have to give birth to something drastically different from itself for evolution to work,) what I do require is that some creature today would give birth to something with just enough of a change that would show a living creature such as a dog, cat, mouse, frog, bird, lizard, rhino, elephant, giraffe, horse, cow , or anything would show some sort of change that was clearly a change towards a new creature.
Evolutionists claim that it takes so much time you can't see it. But if evolution were true something living somewhere would be in some kind of an in between stage. You claim the bird in your link is some kind of in between stage, yet you don't know what it went through before it ended up were it was found. You don't know if it's beak was torn off, or if it was a complete species that just died off. You don't now if it ever had offspring. But you claim in the fossilized world that you can have something that is in an in between stage, yet you don't think there would have to be at least one thing living today that would be in an in between stage. Something in an in between stage that is alive would be solid proof, But there is not one. If evolution were true and people came from apes, there should be something in between. I'm not just talking about apes to people, you can put that same process to any line of origin from one creature transforming into another. Somewhere there should be something, but for your convenience you can just claim it takes more time. Yeah, so much time it has stopped.
If evolution were true and there are as many different types of animals as there are, something would be in the process of changing somewhere.

(Anything that cannot breed is a different kind? Panthera and Felinidae are different kinds then, so lions and housecats are different kinds. So, in fact, would apes and monkeys. Sparrows and chickens are also different kinds. According to your definition, there would actually have to be billions of different kinds, despite the fact that we know that they are related.)

Not necessarily, you see with God it's very possible that there may have been two vultures, two birds of prey, two of the more common seed and berry type of birds. We know according to the scripture there was dove, and pigeon. So it is easy with God that He could give the birds on the arc to have the necessary biological genes to get all the other types of birds. K-9's are a perfect example of that. Just because a sparrow doesn't mate with a blue Jay in the wild, doesn't mean that you couldn't artificially inseminate them in a lab. As one of the other Atheist on this site pointed out that there have been some different types of cats, that wouldn't mate in the wild because one would eat the other, in which have been matted in a lab. In which the offspring are infertile. The simple explanation for that is, that is the end of the line. They simply can't produce beyond that. But the end result is that a bird remains a bird, a dog a dog, a cat a cat.
But in the way you claim all creatures have one common ancestor, in which the actual species has to physically change over a period of time. The problem with that is that we should see creatures all over the world in different stages. But yet all cats are still cat's, and so on.
An idiot with eyes could see that!!!

(Any idiot with eyes can tell that birds are all related. As far as birds from dinosaurs, let us see where the evidence leads. Let us go back to the first birdlike organism we know of:

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/2175/20130529/new-prehistoric-bi...

It has feathered wings and a tail, yet has legs and apparently no beak, truly a transitional form despite your insistence that they don't exist.)

It just looks like a bird.

(As far as the universe not being old, let us just look to one of the most constant things in our universe, light. There are stars in our universe so far away from us, that they might not even exist anymore despite us still being able to see their light, some of which are so far away that the light(which is a universal constant) takes millions of years just to reach us. If the universe where as young as you imply, we wouldn't be able to see these stars, and there would not be many stars in our night sky. Once again, any fool with eyes can tell that you are wrong.)

The Bible says that God stretched out the heavens. Which means that the stars original place would have been closer. In which when God stretched it out the light wouldn't have any problem for us to see it today.
The other problem you have is that you don't know what a star is. No one can see anything but a speck of light from them. You can't tell the size nor the shape of a star. Outside of someone drawing their own personal imagination, there is not one up close picture of a star outside of our solar system. I challenge you to find just one that has not been created by the help of a man made computer software program.
Any fool with eyes can see that.

CyberLN's picture
"there is not one up close

"there is not one up close picture of a star outside of our solar system"

You best define 'close up' chucky. How close is it?

Nyarlathotep's picture
"there is not one up close

"there is not one up close picture of a star outside of our solar system. I challenge you to find just one that has not been created by the help of a man made computer software program."

LOL. Chucky wants a close up picture of an object 25 trillion miles away, AND he does not want any image processing in the photo! Too funny.

CyberLN's picture
Chucky typically asks for

Chucky typically asks for something stating few or no parameters. When what he has asked for is offered, out come all the limiters. It's terribly wearisome at times and amusing at others.

Pages

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.