Though I take the side of Craig I feel sorry for those on the opposition who were so poorly represented. Dawkins would have made somewhat of a contest of proceedings.
Atkins appears to be trying to prepare the audience for a very forward concept. A concept that will destroy what religious types consider the basis for living. Science is a very elaborate path of information starting from the cause and moving to the effect (my idea of it anyways). Religion is generally a filler to fill in gaps to areas where Science has yet to fill. He says laziness because he (like myself) believe to do so is to abandon the search for information to fill the gap.
i cant help but feel GOD has not seemed to intervene directly into our world just to let people like atkins exist so he can laugh at them and then show up at the end of days and say "busted!"
Craig is a master debater. He argues for the concept/widely accepted definition for what the word "God" means. That in itself can not really be refuted or disproved.
I am shocked that no he has ever debated has realized this and responded in a suitable manner. Instead people focus on attacking the utility of religion. Craig is smart enough not to go for their bait and stays narrowly on the focus of defending an ultimately irrefutable concept. He is essentially defending the "definition" of God.
Atheists are often so bitter. I can't understand that. William Lane Craig is an incredibly sharp man. Very enjoyable to listen to and not just because I believe in God.
@Onesideofyams Actually science is pretty useful, it's more than just a tool and is used in a multitude of fields to discover new things about what is around us. Without this perception your view on reality changes. Socially, science can help us understand our origins, universally it helps us understand the universe. Science is more than nothing, we depend on it each and every day. Science brings us further with innovations, religion changes to fit these discoveries.
Where does god's morality come from? would be a good question, why is god not subject to rules such as us if he has no free will? What gives god purpose? Why did jesus have to defeat death, as an adversary? My last opinion is, there can't just be two explanations god or not, what if it's something entirely different we haven't thought of beyond what we call "god"? I am open to there being a god, but which one?
Ahh, this was Atkins in his prime. A nice spry young age of 87. I fear that in recent years he's been falling prey to senility. I think you can even see some of the early warning signs in this video. Notice while Atkins speaks his eyes constantly chase a fly around the room that simply isn't there....he even goes on to postulate that nothing exists in the next part of the argument. When Peter? WHEN DID WE LOSE YOU!??!?!?!
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Atkins Atkins Atkins, you think you can convince people to take your argument by insulting them? You think you can prove your argument is true by asserting first that it is and then trying to prove it? No. Take the God argument first as true, then prove why it cannot be! Peter Atkins makes all atheist like me around the world look like arrogant self-righteous know-it-alls who cannot properly defend an argument!
@MannyXj1 Could you do better against Craig? people on youtube go crazy and get all mad sometimes, but i dont want you to do that. Just prove God doesnt exist. I dare you haha.
@lukethebladesmith12 It's not about proving anything... It's about who's argument is more rational. You can't prove or disprove a negative. I could do better than Atkins against Craig. You don't have to be special to do so, you just have to know what you're talking about.
Until we are able to lift the box / vail / (define proper distinguishments) and "KNOW", The answer is BOTH. This is how the unknown is understood.
But things become worst, as there are key components of the "theist" God which create contradictions and any argument that uses it (theistic view) fails eternally.
Craig does make certain hypothetical arguments, but these are postulations, and the "premises" haven't been verified.
What...did you plug your ears and pretend to lip read Atkins? The Bible and those propagating such folly is what is insulting, to all the world, and the possibility of an actual God, or simply put THE TRUTH.
Atkins addressed what can be understood best, that which explains the most with the fewest errors. Craig is all hypothetical rhetoric. He asks to disprove a negative. JOKE
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" - Thomas Jefferson
I agree, e.g., "...laziness. It's well-suited to armchair brains who prefer to indulge in adipose arguments. You're not here I trust because you're one of those."
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man had said can never be accurate, for he always unconsciously translates what he has heard into something he can understand."
I'm sorry, But all's that Atkins is doing, is he's talking down about people who believe in religion, and calling them names in a fanciful way. He proves NOTHING!
He believes in the "Big Bang" but canot scientifically prove why he believes in it.
That to me is what?
Faith.
Lane brought questions and witness statements.
Atkins brought "You're too stupid to understand me."
@AzBirdDog ...atkins is a typical atheist. every atheist that i have talked to or seen on youtube are complete assholes. i dont know why but thats just how it is i guess
"He believes in the "Big Bang" but canot scientifically prove why he believes in it."
There's a massive amount of scientific evidence for the Big Bang.
"Lane brought questions and witness statements."
Questions that have long been shown to be invalid. And what witness statements are you talking about? I hope not the quote mines Craig loves to use so much.
"Atkins brought You're too stupid to understand me."
"hello thank you its a great pleasure to be here in this country. i came across the pond in search of a healthy debate, but now I realize i've been dooped into debating a moron. It would be a disgrace to my career to carry on any further, so I take leave. If it is not abundantly clear why Craig has shot himself in the foot, please consider learning mastering all fields of science. Otherwise, trust that scientists in every field know what they're talking about, because Craig obviously doesnt."
@SezSa Did you mean duped? Doped, maybe? If you are so sure you're aware of everything and atheist's are the only ones able to make conclusions about religious questions, why is it you can't even spell? You are obviously able to be wrong. Could you be wrong about your interpretation of the sciences? Or don't you even know the controversy for atheism is theism? It's one or the other, Sez and you, my brother, could be wrong! So buck up and think like a man who understands truth by starting there.
@lederereddy Well if you ever wanted to prove that you dont understand science or the scientific method, that was the way to do it. Enjoy your ignorance, I'm sure your god gives you a happy little life to judge others from.
@SezSays What do I mean by that? I mean, none of the sciences are conclusive about origins. That's why they're called theory's. All we have is evidence, not proof! The bible states that all creatures were created by God and they only produce their own kind. That's as demonstrable fact. Every organism on the face of the earth has a parent organism and each one is able to birth its own kind, bar none. You can say what you want but the facts are facts. Do you know scientifically 1st parents origin?
@SezSays Where was the first bee created? What was a bee before it was a bee? What was a monkey before it was a monkey? What was water before it was water? What was the universe before it was created? What is beyond the physical realm? How many realms are there? Could God exist? Is that possible? If He does, could He have made His existence known to some but not to others? If others have knowledge that you do not is their knowledge invalid just because you don't have it? Science's no help is it?
@UnitedFan16 "Craig is a great debater, his debating skills disguise his incredibly weak arguments and false claims"
Good try! But the fact remains it's the expose of information- True Vs False. All Craig does is expose the truth of His opponent's position. Atkins is just a terrible liar, speaks the truth, unwittingly admitting he believes BS because he hates God and believers.
"Atkins on the other hand is a terrible debater, which makes his valid arguments appear weak"
@punnet2 "The reality is we're not sure what happened prior to the big bang. Introducing a god doesn't help."... Ya, it doesn't help anything except explaining where everything came from.
This huge, powerful, extravagant occurrence happens, aptly named creation but no reason to think God did it. Atheist's are amusing, often. Maybe they don't understand the physical impossibilities that are forced into play by assuming nothing can actually explode into a working universe. It's asinine Bull Shit
@lederereddy Actually, it explains nothing -- it simply plugs a gap in our knowledge. People used "god" in the past to explain lightning, eclipses and disease, but as our knowledge increased, there were less gaps for your god to fit into.
Only an idiot (like you) would try to "explain" something huge, powerful and extravagant with something even huger, more powerful, and more extravagant -- essentially replacing a mystery with an even bigger mystery.
@punnet2 's exactly what it implies a coyote is a kind of dog (canine) a Shetland is a kind of horse a bass is a kind of fish an oak a kind of tree a poppy a kind of plant amungus a kind of fungus and they are unique, observably non interbreeding, non intersecting glitches in the proposed theory that everything is related. That's just how it is, my friend. We can't observe what happened, so I suppose they were made by God and you nature. According to observed evidence there's always been kinds.
@lederereddy I asked for a definition of "kind", not examples. Do you have a definition? Noone that has used this "produce it's own 'kind'" argument has been able to actually define it.
@punnet2 "I asked for a definition of "kind", not examples.
The trouble with my definition has more to do with your clumsy position as an atheist forcing you to make obvious, but hopefully out of character, retarded replies like this.
Giving examples is defining!
playing stupid doesn't help you. A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort:
Underlying character the class to which a thing belongs.
b. The natural order or course of things; nature, essence
@lederereddy So your definition of kind is "a group of individuals sharing common traits"? Excellent! As you should realize, humans have common traits with all other living things, from chimpanzees to dogs to fish to plants and bacteria. And of course, the commonality of traits lines up with the amount of common DNA. So your own definition of "kind" accepts evolution. Get it?
@punnet2 Every theory's based on evidence? True, but! The theory is a fallible human being's interpretation of the evidence! The bottom line is you and I and the scientist's, we're all subject to believing it by faith. That is a fact. A fact is something we don't have to believe by faith. Example: Today you look in the mirror and count 32 teeth! You have 32 teeth is a fact! Imagining that you'll have 32 teeth tomorrow is faith. You do not know! But in your mind, it's more a fact, huh? Why?...
@lederereddy Yes, theories can (and have) been modified or replaced based on new evidence. Which is why geocentricity or Newtonian physics were reasonable based on the knowledge at the time and could even be usefully applied; but as more evidence was gathered, they were replaced by better theories.
Your worthless bible, however, has no evidence for its ridiculous claims, and NO USEFUL APPLICATION.
@punnet2 It's not that simple. It's a study to get all the information and frankly I,m not the idiot jumping to the conclusion, you are. You heard something somewhere and it fits your view so you're assuming that you have the better answer. And your wrong.
@punnet2 "the bible's endorsement of slavery and genocide
- it's (?classification?wtf?)of bats as birds" cute! lol!
Very Good! Now we'll see, huh!
Where, pray tell does the bible endorse slavery? The bible gives accounts of slavery. The bible denounces slavery. The bible judges those who commit slave trade but you, my friend will never find one single verse endorsing it
Bats/birds Yeah and you text'd someone saying you watched the sunset. Do flying squirrels fly? No.
@lederereddy So you're not even aware of the bible verses that sanction slavery? Haven't you read your bible? (Once again, we see the christtards aren't familiar with their own scripture). There's multiple passages, for example Lev.25:44-46. Now, I might have missed it but please provide ONE PASSAGE where the bible denounces slavery. Just one.
And, wrong again. In Lev 11:13-19, bats are listed among "fowls". It's not just a description; it's an erroneous classification.
In context, God’s commands are perfectly consistent with justice and mercy. The Canaanites, Sodomites etc were being judged and the sentence was capitol punishment. It's that simple. God's illustrated throughout history that He alone rules with ultimate and lasting power. FYI, you and I are next. Ready for that? It's coming.
@lederereddy So when god commands killing off every last man, woman AND child -- and sometimes keeping the young virgins for some unknown purpose -- then it's perfectly acceptable. Otherwise, it's wrong?
Perhaps a poorly educated sheep like you can respect a god like that; I can't.
@punnet2 "inconsistencies Matthew/Luke regarding the time of Jesus' birth" There's an inconsistency about the time? How do you know? The record has to be traced through genealogy, one from Adam to Mary and the other is Josephs genealogy. Is there two different dates? No! Do you bother to think before you post this crap?
@lederereddy I was actually referring to Matthew placing jesus' birth under Herod's reign, and Luke placing it during the governership of Quirinius. Quirinius did not become governor until 9 years after Herod's death.
@super17sd And they come back together at Shealtiel/Zerubabbel, and both end with Joseph (not Mary, as apologists try to claim).
In any case, there is a difference of 16 generations, not just a few. That implies hundred of years difference. Even if you speculate that the extraneous generations begat on average at 10 years, that still comes to a difference 160+ years.
@lederereddy Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, has only gained confirmation as our knowledge has increased. Darwin based his theory on the morphology of living things he observed in one part of the world; he had no extensive knowledge of the fossil record or DNA. The data that these have provided, however, have each in turn reinforced the theory, not undermined it.
Humans are fallible, but when discussing science, you, the christ-blinded ignoramus, are obviously the fallible one.
@punnet2 Why?... Because you strongly deny the possibility of loosing a tooth or two, by tomorrow. Never the less, your feelings are invalid. The fact is you do not know if you'll even have a head tomorrow. Point being? That's how it is a bout origins and macro evo. Your feelings about what's true are fallible. You believe by faith and no matter how strong you feel the evidence is, you could still be wrong. Being objective and honest about that, brings you into a place of respect for opposition.
So I guess you won't mind having yours snipped off?
Look, anyone standing on the sidelines of the reality of what it actually takes to create a human being in the same fashion, using the same materials, etc, who can out do Gods, so you say, clumsy, stupid work, I will respect their critique. But you can't even create a gnat. You create turds, so why would I ever consider your obvious slanted opinion? Can you top Gods work? I'd like to see that!
@lederereddy So in fact, you're not able to defend the "intelligent design" of male nipples -- despite a ridiculous attempt with aesthetics and sensuality (you were too ignorant to know that ALL male mammals have useless nipples). That's merely one of countless egregious imperfections which we would not expect from some all-powerful creator.
Can I top "god's work"? Pardon me, but you're yet to prove there is a god. You've been trying to prove it by design, and as we can see you've failed.
@punnet2 Please answer these simple questions, thanks!
1) Is creation evidence for the possibility that creation was created by an intelligence at least smart enough to make the earth and all its creatures?
2)Is God a possibility? Or do you really believe science has enough evidence to absolutely rule out Gods existence?
3)Besides God Himself, what would you accept as evidence if you reject everything God has made as evidence?
4)Why don't you respect theist's for accepting creation as evidence?
1) "Creation" would be evidence that it was "created" (that's a circular argument, genius); however, you're yet to establish that the universe or living things are instances of "creation".
2) There could be a god, but without evidence for one, there's no reason to believe. Science doesn't disprove god, but as science advances, we see there's nothing for a god to do.
3) Because their reasoning is ignorant and flawed, as your statements clearly indicate. Why respect stupidity?
@punnet2 So you have read the bible? When and in what context? Did you have a teacher or did you just read the book? An amazing thing about scripture is realizing what's really being said, thru careful examination. We get it wrong, often. We're men. What kind of relationship did you have with your dad? Did he ever ask you to do something you were certain was the wrong way or thing to do, only to later realize he was right? As a teen, I was sure my dad was stupidbut he proved he wasn't. My point?
@lederereddy Yes, I've read the bible. I actually took several courses in college on scripture (I was thinking of becoming a priest). And I agree: It's important to realize what's actually being said; for example, how the gospel writers manipulated details for their audience, and how there's actually hardly any evidence for a historical jesus.
I never set out to stop believing. I pursued study to deepen my faith, and as a result I ended up losing it.
@punnet2 My point is simple, punnet2. God is a person, like your father. He has set it up this way so we can understand how to approach Him. No matter what your father is in your eyes, good or bad or average. In his heart he hopes to be someone who you admire and respect. He wants to impart wisdom and direction, especially if he failed to. He's a man with a human heart. Do you honor your father, somehow? Do you call him? Ask for advice? Thank him for at least for his part in you existence?
@punnet2 Do you want to know God? Honor your father and your mother, no matter how you feel inside. Change your strategy. Instead of looking for a thing, approach God as you would a man. Politely and respectfully. God's not angry with you, punnet! But you are in a terrifying position, being hard headed and hard hearted. I'm going to give you some simple advise. Please take it!!! You and I are just scared kids fighting to understand what went wrong. Stop fighting and trust God. Can you do that?
@punnet2 A definition of sanity is being able to adapt our attitude to any situation and access the greatest outcome. If you died today and God does exist, is there a reason He should accept you into His house? What do you expect from God? Do you expect more from God? Or could you thank Him for something? There are things you can't possibly know about Jesus, Punnet. Simply because your attitude overrides your humility. But that's the awesome thing about freewill. You can change that right now.
@punnet2 "I never set out to stop believing. I pursued study to deepen my faith, and as a result I ended up losing it"
It's a mistake to try to replace God with knowledge. We are only men. I assure you, you have jumped the gun and assumed some portion of scripture is wrong. But you're wrong and the only way for you to realize your error is by finding one or two of these so called mistakes God made and pray for His understanding of the passage. If you can muster the humility, I pray He meets you.
@lederereddy You just admitted that you have to remain ignorant to be a good, believing christian.
"...only men"? Th bible is a product of "only men", and rather ignorant ones at that. I DID NOT assume scripture was wrong; like you, I once ASSUMED it was 100% correct. It was only after actually studying it that I realized it had errors.
You choose proudly to remain ignorant, since that's the only way you can hold your original assumption that the bible is correct.
@lederereddy Let's see you "pray" your way around:
- the bible's endorsement of slavery and genocide
- it's classification of bats as birds
- the geologically and biologically impossible great flood story
- the inconsistencies between matthew and luke regarding the time of jesus' birth. In fact, if you think you have the balls, take Dan Barker's "Easter Challenge" (google it), and "pray" your way around the inconsistencies in the resurrection story in the gospels and acts.
@punnet2 ""Creation" would be evidence that it was "created" (that's a circular argument, genius)"
The fact is everything is created, genius. It's only a matter of by whom or what created it. It's not circular reasoning to infer a supernatural event occurred when nature can't explain the fact that life, against any reasonable odds is here anyway. And that goes for thousands of miraculous, impossible physical challenges noted in existence such as stars, planets, moons, water, many elements, etc.
@lederereddy The fact is, you're dodging your burden of proof in saying everything is "created", genius. Crystals and snowflakes (again), are not "created". They are examples of order emerging naturally, without any designer.
It is unreasonable to infer a supernatural event for no other reason than we lack a natural explanation; it is reasonable to simply say "we don't know". As history has shown, we have continuously replaced "we don't know" with a natural explanation.
@lederereddy In other words, you are simply relying on a trite argument from ignorance: "We don't have a natural explanation for X, so it must be a magical god".
Exactly what do you mean by "impossible physical challenges"? More than likely, you have no idea what your'e taking about (again). You've shown repeatedly you lack any scientific knowledge, and as one of your previous posts indicates, you're rather proud of the fact you lack knowledge.
@punnet2 "a ridiculous attempt with aesthetics and sensuality"
This btw is a perfect example of your bias overruling your ability to accept evidence. The "fact" is those are at least two (2) reasons for males to have nipples. How many reasons do you need? 3, 4, 10? Besides, as I said before bad design is only your opinion. Don't keep using stupid arguments, then retort as if you haven't. You and anyone who tries saying there's no evidence for (design in anatomy) needs to look the words up.
@lederereddy Please answer directly: Did your god put nipples on ALL MALE MAMMALS, for the sake of aesthetics and sensuality? This includes dogs, whales, walruses, etc.. Are you claiming that walruses gain some sensual gratification from theirs, or bats (who are BLIND) appreciate their aesthetics?
And still waiting (among other points you've avoided) to explain why bats have useless eyes; why humans have blind spots and squid don't; and turkeys have better eyesight than humans.
@punnet2 "humans have common traits with all other living things, from chimpanzees to dogs to fish to plants and bacteria"
No shit, Sherlock! We were all created by the same Maker. He wanted some to see, some to use sonar, some to walk some to hop some to talk some to swim.But most of all He wanted to create man in His own image. He set you apart from every other living creature. Do you realize the responsibility of that? Do you realize what a privilege that is? An awesome gift to... piss away?
@lederereddy Wrong, Watson! Common traits are a result of common genetics. Once again (pay attention!): Your DNA wasn't "made" to be similar to your siblings'; it's similar because you received it from the same source (your parents). Your DNA is similar to your cousins' (but less similar than to your siblings') because it's from the same source (your grandparents). Human and chimp DNA (and all other livings things) is similar for the same reason: common ancestry. No "maker" required.
"in his own image"? So your god has vertebrae, an appendix, a digestive tract, a penis (if so, is it circumcised?), eyes with blind spots (unlike squid) and ... nipples for his own aesthetic/sensual satisfaction?
And what exactly do you mean by "set apart"? I'm pretty sure I know how you'll respond, since I've heard the argument several times before (and you're hardly original), but if you could describe exactly what you mean, it will demonstrate again how poorly educated you are.
@punnet2 I realize I've corrected you on several counts which you haven't acknowledged and I understand that!!! It's unpleasant to be corrected by someone you may not respect but I adjure you to at least quietly take a good look at how you've been trained to overlook the reality of scientific method, encouraged to ignore what's truly observable evidence and replace it with what's said to be observable evidence. Not by me or some religious group but by evolutionists. Do you see that? Askurselfwhy
@lederereddy Exactly what do you claim to have corrected me on? If anything, I've been correcting your ignorance of science so far.
Not sure where you get this crack-brained idea that anyone's keeping you from "using" science, or that you "have" to be atheist. Ken Miller and Francis Collins are both believing christians who accept the theory of evolution, and oppose the teaching of intelligent design. There's no scientific evidence for god or intelligent design, so there is no controversy.
@punnet2 Seriously! Why would evolutionists be so insistent about who is able to use science and who isn't? It's naive to think observers of the natural world can only be objective if they don't believe in God. But that was the supreme courts decision no more than a year ago! Only atheist's are able to understand nature! How ludicrous!... That's exactly what religious fanatics do (itc atheist's). They can't help it. Their fear of being wrong's too compelling, so, muzzle the controversy! Sickshit
@punnet2 People trying to force their beliefs on others is some sick shit, isn't it? How would you like it if Christians were trying to keep you from ever even seeing a biology book that depicts the theory of evolution? Shouldn't everyone have the freedom to learn the controversy of a matter before deciding which is true and which isn't? Atheist's have resisted this and turned into the religious freaks of the Scopes trial, who demanded evolution theory wasn't science. Truth? Evidence's for both.
@lederereddy The evidence for evolution is conclusive, and you even admitted it. You accept microevolution. You simply refuse to believe many stages of microevolution add up to larger changes. That's about as intelligent as saying you can't cover a large distance by taking many small steps.
@punnet2 Only 1% of the sun's energy reaches earth, while the other 99% goes off into space, unused. That's just plain stupid.
Hahahahaha! That's just plain stupid! Of coarse you, being an atheist, would twist truth into some little bs senario. WTF? Am I supposed to take you serious? The whole fucking cosmos is miraculously favorable for life on earth. If it were ANY different, your ungrateful ass wouldn't be breathing.
Suffices to say you lose that argument from (ignorance) Defined: to ignore!
You're too dense to see the problem. Stars are highly inefficient energy sources. That would be like starting a forest fire to toast a marshmallow or building a car which gets 1 millimeter per gallon. Not to mention that our sun is a 3rd generation star, which would be like building a vehicle and melting it down twice, in order to make the barely usable final version.
If that's the best "design" your god could come up with for providing a source of energy to a planet, your god's an idiot.
@punnet2 Besides, you believe! Out of the heart the mouth speaks truth. Heard that before? Listen to yourself if you don't believe me. We're either praising God or cursing Him by using His name in vain. It's our sinful nature as His created son or daughter. None of us can help it. There are lots of popular sayings but not everyone uses the same ones except when it comes to our our Maker Jesus Christ. You cursed Christ 10 x today? & a alcoholic spent half hour explaining why he's not a alcoholic.
@lederereddy So are you actually arguing that when someone says "goddammit" or "jesus f*n christ", that implies they believe in god? If so, you're not very bright.
We still use the terms "sunrise" and "sunset", even though we know that's not what the sun does.
We still say Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday, even though we don't believe in Wotan, Thor & Saturn.
We still call the planets Venus, Mars, Juppiter, etc., so does that mean we still believe in the Roman gods?
Bull! Give one single example of nature arranging complex, multilevel engineering designs outside biology and I'll quit right now! Skip the snowflake and rippled sand BS. That's not engineering, building, complex or design. It's a single, reactionary response to heat, cold, wind, etc. In other words "Nature fails when it comes to engineering. That is why we understand the existence of an unseen but obvious person capable of complexity in creation
@lederereddy What do you mean "skip the snowflake"? Snowflakes, crystals, Fibonacci sequences in shells and pine cones...there are countless examples of emergent order and complexity. Computer simulations even demonstrate that a simple set of rules can yield highly complex patterns (look up cellular automata and "Game of Life" if you actually want to get educated). Of course it's not engineering -- and neither is biology.
Cells & DNA are a natural phenomenon, just like snowflakes.
@punnet2 "you can't help me understand the existence of your god--since you have(no)evidence for your god, and all you can do is dodge"
All of your posts are dodging. You have never once produced any argument for your position. All you can muster is this redundant chant about how I have no proof.
I must be bored to put up with your meaningless ramblings.
God help you? But why? You reject The Lord who could save you from such stupidity of your surroundings. Who the fuck am I to try to help you...
@lederereddy Actually, I did, and you acknowledged it. You agree that mutation and adaptation occurs, and that it is observable. You simply content that continuous stages of microevolution do not lead to macroevolution. That makes about as much sense as saying short distances do not add up to long distances.
And you can't provide a concrete definition of "kind", which of course makes your argument meaningless, that one "kind" cannot become another "kind".
@lederereddy Again: The same DNA analysis that proves you are related to your parents, siblings and cousins proves you are related to other living things. As far as humans, the fossil record shows the gradual development of upright posture and larger cranial size. Exactly what you would expect from evolution, and not from a god who likes to play with clay & ribs.
The DNA evidence alone is enough to prove evolution, but for someone as ignorant as you, the fossil record should make it clear.
Good advice! Try it! And I mean do just that. The evidence for the resurrection is available and presented by sound men, with clear conscience, in legal format, allowing the evidence to speak for itself. The easiest one to understand, in my opinion, has an accredited background in investigation as the lead editor of The Chicago Tribune, Lee Strobel. Remember, you said I have (no) evidence. That's dodging truth, friend. You are guilty and your posts declare it.
@lederereddy "The evidence for the resurrection is available..." -- and yet you can't tell us what it is, despite being asked several times. If you think the writer of "Case for christ" presents the strongest argument for the resurrection, you're more gullible than I thought. He doesn't even believe that Mark, Matthew and Luke are synoptic.
And I guess you're still scrounging around for the evidence of Clay Man/Rib Woman and Talking Snake. Let me know how that's going...
@punnet2 "it raises the likelihood that life developed through natural means, which is a more reasonable explanation than yours, since it makes no appeal to the supernatural, but operates fully within the physical laws"
You're overriding the lead the evidence is demanding? Why? Don't you know that if life could (naturally) self generate, it would? It doesn't, because it can't. Therefore, do not purposely sabotage the evidence in order to satisfy your preconceived world view, atheism.
@punnet2 "And DNA/RNA do not indicate precision engineering."
Only an atheist could examine the engineering involved in cell construction, ignore bio-mechanics, ignore the entire embryonic system which is separate from the DNA/RNA system and try to sway the gullible into the notion that what they are looking at is basic, even bad engineering? I am blown away by your presumptuousness.
BTW You need to stay current. There is new info all the time revealing the true uses of so called junk DNA, etc.
@punnet2 "cancer, birth defects and other tragedies are all the result of mistakes that occur during DNA replication"
Just as easily explained by sin. Man is still under the same exact curse written down by Moses. We will die.
Get your head around this! That was written 3500 years ago and it stands today. If man is truly the only god in town, why hasn't he overruled that decree? All the atheists in the world can't change a single line of scripture though you've been trying since the beginning.
@lederereddy So you originally argued that DNA was obviously proof of your god. Yet when I pointed out to you (since you obviously didn't know) that DNA regularly produces tragic results (and is in fact guaranteed to), you respond that is obviously proof of sin. You perhaps don't realize how duplicit your thinking is.
And of course, sin for you is the result of Clay Man and Rib Woman eating an apple after being tricked into it by Talking Snake. Where's the evidence for that again?
@punnet2 "None of this indicates an intelligent designer."
Like I said, look up the word (ignorance) It's a derivative meaning "to ignore"
Have you ignored the fact that eyes are cameras? Haven't you ignored the fact that God has made literally trillions of trillions of intricate chemical signals that if not obeyed all of life would fail to exist at the cellular level? It is designed for a purpose! He's built you a body to control for a time. What will you do with His gift? Hate and mock Him?
@punnet2 "What is so "masterful" about useless nipples on males?" Are you a eunuch? Ignorance again! Of coarse the male nipple has its uses! It's esthetically much more appealing. It's a sensual organ. It's visually a centerpiece for masculinity. Not just for lovers but in general. There are no tails in human embryo's, Punny boy. You've been duped again! Those cells that appear to look like tails and gills have all been accounted for as underdeveloped organs like the spine. More ignorance.
@lederereddy LOL - so you're saying your "masterful" god gave males nipples for AESTHETIC and SENSUAL purposes? And they just happen to correspond to the mammary glands on females? So...did god put them on dogs and whales for the same reason? (All male mammals have useless nipples, in case you didn't know).
@lederereddy And you're wrong, yet again. Ask any embryologist: The human fetus develops the vestigial tail (complete with vertebrae), then loses it between weeks 4 and 8. The exact same phenomenon is noticed in the embryonic development of chimpanzees and other primates. In those species that do not lost the formation, it becomes the tail.
First it was the the physicists, now the embryologists: The ignorant bible-flipper thinks he knows more than scientists actually working in their field.
@punnet2 That's the real truth, my friend. There is evidence for both creation and the biblical account and evidence for the theory of macro evolution but neither is conclusive. There is just no way to know for certain whether you'll die and face a loving God, an evil God, or just cease to exist but there is a way to meet God before death. The evidence for that is as simple as the fact that your whole being is ready made for one main objective and that's relationships, hence eyes,ears,mouth,mind
@lederereddy Amen. And once that meeting takes place... then and only then does one understand scripture and begins to learn that fearing God is actually freedom to go about ones life fearlessly. Walking in God's righteousness is then followed by permanent station with Him. Just knock, He will answer.
@punnet2 arms and hands that face forward, posture of embrace, a heart of internal complexity, max factors of immeasurable knowledge an intuitions aka instincts. My friend, that's where you meet The Creator, Jesus Christ, there in the throne room of your being, where there are no lies, because it's just you and God... That's where He is, now and where He's always been, by your side, seeing every hope, satisfaction and disappointment and that's the place He will answer eternal questions.Get there
@lederereddy Wow. A whole bunch of posts, and still NO EVIDENCE to support your belief in the Clay Golem/Rib Woman/Talking Snake/Burning Bush/Virgin-born, Water-walking Zombie story. You keep claiming there's evidence, yet refuse to provide any. All you can do is show how ignorant you are about both science, and now, even your own scriptures.
At least be honest enough to admit you have no evidence for your beliefs, and are simply running on faith fumes.
@punnet2 "So exactly what were these "staunchest standards", when was this and by whom?"
Study! Look into it! Along with the history of bible, biblical prophecy and apologetics. Good scholars allow the evidence to speak for itself. The bible and archeology from an atheist's point of view don't exist. But the bible and archeology from archeology's point of view are synonymous!
@punnet2 "So exactly what were these "staunchest standards", when was this and by whom?"
Study! Look into it! Along with the history of bible, biblical prophecy and apologetics. Good scholars allow the evidence to speak for itself. The bible and archeology from an atheist's point of view don't exist. But the bible and archeology from archeology's point of view are synonymous! Evidence- Google- "The search for the real Mount Sinai" and youtube- "Digging for the truth" Read 1st cen Roman history.
@lederereddy In other words...you don't know. You obviously haven't studied it, as you didn't know the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery undermined your bible's claim to primacy, as it indicated there were other versions of the scriptures in circulation. At least have the honesty to admit you didn't know that (you said, "The DSS are the bible!"). If you in fact did know this, then again (2nd time now!): explain HOW the canonical writings were separated from the non-canonical, WHEN and BY WHOM.
Sorry, sheeply one. A story about a resurrection is not proof of the resurrection. Not even 4 different versions of the story, which contradict each other in many details. The resurrection only makes sense if you already believe in it. I'm sure you reject the ridiculous, supernatural claims of other religions without any trouble. You simply don't apply that rational thinking to your own ridiculous, supernatural beliefs.
And of course I know more than god, if god doesn't exist!
@punnet2 "Your arguing when someone says "goddammit" or "jesus"
All your illustrations were words we use in association with certain objects. That varies from one language to the next. Cursing God is universal, exponential and personal. You're in denial, so you refuse to accept the responsibility for your actions. We have always known it's wrong, but time and effort wear down our conscience until it's just another word.Christ takes His name serious and there's consequences for every idle word.
@lederereddy Way to backtrack, fool. You know full well they're just colloquialisms -- the same way people use "insha allah (god willing)" as a figure of speech in muslims countries. Those phrases you're desperately clinging to are part of our vernacular because christianity has been part of our culture for so long (as "Wednesday" and "January" indicate the influence of Norse and Roman culture on ours). That doesn't mean christianity is actually true.
@punnet2 You seem to think there's no consequence for your attitude toward God. That "old, poorly written book" could help you but your attitude does need adjusting and quickly I might add. Do you know anything about the bible? There is not one piece or one group of literature that equals its quality, demand, its number, its translations, the premises for which it was written. Its nothing short of phenomenon, but again, you, an atheist, haven't blinked before committing intellectual suicide.
@lederereddy Your desperation is getting worse, since you're now resorting to threats, which are as unproven as the god you're backing them up with.
I'm willing to wager I know the bible better than you. Exactly what is the extend of your study? And sorry, a book that is scientifically inaccurate, morally reprehensible, and altogether absurd is no help to me.
And exactly what are you referring to when you mean "quality"? From a literary standpoint, much of the bible is worthless.
@punnet2 "In other words...you don't know. You obviously haven't studied it, as you didn't know the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery undermined your bible's claim to primacy..."
Do you know why you jump to conclusions so fast? It's because your gullible You have no clue what your saying. You assume, assume, assume. But you don't ask questions about the realities of what you're taught. I do and I' have for thirty years. You don't have to be a scholar to know the value of Dead Sea Scrolls, tard.
@lederereddy I've jumped to no conclusions. I pointed out (correctly) that the DSS showed there were scriptures in use which are not in your particular version of the bible. I simply asked you (3 times now!) to outline the methodology for determining the canon which you so slavishly believe in, and when and by whom it was applied. Your 've repeated failure to answer this direct question is reasonable indication that you don't know.
@punnet2 There's only one kind of idiot blind enough to make as many ignorant statements as you have and that's an atheist. So caught up in the grandiosity of your selfish little world that you imagine that all the intelligent applications of study, the labor and sweat of anyone that doesn't think like you is invalid. Your a pathetic little puke and someday you'll choke on it. You get no more respect. You never earned it in the first place but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Go evolve
@lederereddy Oh, don't get your wool in a knot, you sheeply little christian. I plainly asked you for EVIDENCE of your belief in the story of the Clay, the Rib, & the Talking Snake (and the Water-Walking Zombie), several times. Your evidence? NONE.
You can't huff and puff your way around your ignorance of general science (go ask your high school for a refund), or your lack of evidence for the absurd Bronze Age myths you believe in. Go get raptured.
@punnet2 "you are simply relying on a (trite?) argument"
Hardly a trite argument when in fact it's the only other possible answer.
"Exactly what do you mean by "impossible physical challenges?"
Being an atheist, I'm sure the details oppressing your theory manage to escape the consequence of your scrutiny. But none the less, they're very real! Let's start with the day a dirt clod decided to eat, shit, breath, reproduce, and move about. Physical impossibility. That is a fact. Then the nonexistent-
@lederereddy Wrong. Another possible answer is: There's a natural explanation, and we just haven't discovered it yet.
If you think science claims a "dirt clod" decided to "eat", or that a "cell" decided to "build plants and animals", you're more ignorant than you've been letting on.
@punnet2 and imaginary cell got bored and decided to build plants and animals by shear will and pull yourself up by the bootstraps good old fashioned ingenuity. But cells are incapable of making any decisions so mother nature pounded the cell into a pollywog and then it pounded the pollywog into a frog. All of this just happened to happen on a planet that had been busy making all the prior arrangements needed for a cell to come alive. Physical impossibility means "it didn't happen" Not naturally
All of your bible critiques are typical, atheistic slanders that have long been addressed in perfectly logical terms. There are no inconsistencies because God doesn't make mistakes. You were shown inconsistency and you had no faith so you gave up. Lot's of us do. The amazing thing is there's a good explanation for all those accusations. Only truth could stand even 1/10 of the worlds scrutiny. The bible does it in stride. Your clock's ticking, Punnet. That's a fact. God's hoping you stop
Once again (pay attention, now!): If you think something huge like the universe requires a cause (which you label god), then by your very own "logic", something huger (like your god) requires a cause all the more. Conversely: If you're comfortable believing something as huge as your god can exist without a cause, by your very own "logic", you should be all the more comfortable believing that something less huge (like the universe) can exist without a cause.
@punt2 "something huger (like your god) requires a cause all the more" Sorry friend but you're wrong. Science, though it doesn't tell us everything, (as I'm sure was planned given the nature of it) does tell us many things. 1) Physical properties and the laws or in other words limitations governing them. We know that something can't be created from nothing. Every atom created was created on the day of creation they can only be transformed not eliminated. What made us is outside of created things
@punnet2 Knowing that the universe had a specific beginning only solidifies the need for God and that I say only because it's obvious that God has put the very well know laws governing what it will and will not do right down to the next meal that goes on your plate and the next breath you will take. There's no chance that life would have risen out of the oblivion you claim! Secondly, it has no chance of making & organizing cells into configurations that counter the hostilities imposed by nature.
@lederereddy Actually, no. Physicist Stephen Hawking, for one, has said in his recent book that no god is necessary to explain the origin of the universe; that it can and will create itself from nothing.
As far as "life": While abiogenesis is a relatively new field of study, there already is scientific data such as the Miller experiment which point to a natural origin to the building blocks of life, again with no need for a supernatural agent.
@punnet2 Well if you want to stay within the outlines of what is considered the strictest or even the loosest interpretation of the scientific method, it doesn't matter what Stephen Hawking's said in his book. What matters is what can be tested, repeated and confirmed right here and right now. take for instance Miller/Uery's experiment. What was spread through the media then was that they had successfully demonstrated how the building blocks of life could form, a billion years ago. The media...
@lederereddy Actually, what Hawking says matters, since he's one of the scientists that creationists quote-mine when arguing for the existence of god. Craig, for example, cites him by name when trying to back up his 1st premise in the Kalam argument: "the universe began to exist".
And you're right: What matters is what can be tested. So let us know when you can actually scientifically test for your god's existence, instead of arguing from ignorance.
@punnet2 Science teaches us that the universe began to exist before Hawking's came along. Any conjecture about how it came to exist is absolutely unfounded by anyone breathing and especially anyone who thinks they could know something that happened before they were born, that's untestable by scientific means. If he said he's shown how things could have began to exist physically, using natural, physical means? He's lying and you're eating it up. Read the fine print. He knows what we know, nada!
Atkins mentions spirit/soul on a number of occasions, so how does something, living, get designed without a divine creator?
MrLinkinparkrules 1 week ago
Though I take the side of Craig I feel sorry for those on the opposition who were so poorly represented. Dawkins would have made somewhat of a contest of proceedings.
211bEanS112 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this stiff actually shows anybody how to be joyous?
betterworld1 1 month ago
Comment removed
betterworld1 1 month ago
Atkins......has not proven one single point....Craig won....big time.
Purity03 1 month ago
Atkins appears to be trying to prepare the audience for a very forward concept. A concept that will destroy what religious types consider the basis for living. Science is a very elaborate path of information starting from the cause and moving to the effect (my idea of it anyways). Religion is generally a filler to fill in gaps to areas where Science has yet to fill. He says laziness because he (like myself) believe to do so is to abandon the search for information to fill the gap.
trom2004 1 month ago 3
The way Atkins talks to the audience is actually rather creepy.
lukehase 2 months ago 3
7:35 "i will not bore you" o how wrong you are mr atkins...
Falcondick69 2 months ago 2
Craig may have 'won' the debate. yet Atkin's won on ideas.
shawndimery 2 months ago
@shawndimery really!? precisely what arguments did he put forth that were not refuted? I am six minutes into his opening and he has said nothing
mollkatless 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why does Peter Atkins' speech sound like one of those boring old church sermons?
vicachcoup 2 months ago
there is only one truth disbelief of God's existence makes any scientists and intelligent humans of worldly matters a FOOL.
911donebyislam 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Christianjr4
Dr Atkins is a cool dude.
wowamonn 2 months ago 3
he spent the first 3 minutes talking about how he would elevate our current intellectual standing,
spent the rest of his time giving points one tier deep with no deep standing in logic whatsoever and during pauses calling us ignorant.
oh and bobbing his head so abruptly to distract us from the drivel spewing out of his mouth
Taurinator 3 months ago 2
According to an ancient poet in my country, the genius lies in making complex words simple. GENIUS... ATKINS HAS NONE.
giorgiv18 3 months ago 3
Comment removed
urcorrect 3 months ago
Watching Dr. Atkins head bobble around gives me a headache.
Yeppox 3 months ago 2
i cant help but feel GOD has not seemed to intervene directly into our world just to let people like atkins exist so he can laugh at them and then show up at the end of days and say "busted!"
Falcondick69 3 months ago
@Falcondick69 God is an adult fairytale. the REQUIRE belief without proof
emailpobox666 3 months ago
@emailpobox666 all life itself and the universe itself is proof : }
Falcondick69 3 months ago
@Falcondick69 It is proof of life nothing more
emailpobox666 3 months ago 2
@emailpobox666 that is the respons eof one who can't see the truth
Falcondick69 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Falcondick69 Whose truth. Jesus Buddha Krishna Ron Hubbard?
emailpobox666 3 months ago
Craig's a fraud, and this guy's a windbag.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 4 months ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays Ipse dixit
MayonR 3 months ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays Craig is a hack he repackaged centuries old philosophical arguments and claimed them as his own
emailpobox666 3 months ago
Atkins offered nothing here, absolutely useless.
reformedman 4 months ago
Craig is a master debater. He argues for the concept/widely accepted definition for what the word "God" means. That in itself can not really be refuted or disproved.
I am shocked that no he has ever debated has realized this and responded in a suitable manner. Instead people focus on attacking the utility of religion. Craig is smart enough not to go for their bait and stays narrowly on the focus of defending an ultimately irrefutable concept. He is essentially defending the "definition" of God.
spammyadvertising 4 months ago
Atheists are often so bitter. I can't understand that. William Lane Craig is an incredibly sharp man. Very enjoyable to listen to and not just because I believe in God.
YoussefS 4 months ago
@YoussefS we are bitter because we realized we were in a cult and we escaped from it and when trying to tell the cult members they deny it
iliveon 3 months ago
@Onesideofyams
"However, where is the scientific institution going?"
It goes on to uncover more about our world, in contrast to religion, which is at a total standstill and always will be.
"Socially, it means nothing."
And why should it?
"Universally, it's infinitely nothing."
Peppering your comments with nonsensical remarks like these doesn't garner you a lot of points.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@Onesideofyams Actually science is pretty useful, it's more than just a tool and is used in a multitude of fields to discover new things about what is around us. Without this perception your view on reality changes. Socially, science can help us understand our origins, universally it helps us understand the universe. Science is more than nothing, we depend on it each and every day. Science brings us further with innovations, religion changes to fit these discoveries.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 5 months ago 2
Where does god's morality come from? would be a good question, why is god not subject to rules such as us if he has no free will? What gives god purpose? Why did jesus have to defeat death, as an adversary? My last opinion is, there can't just be two explanations god or not, what if it's something entirely different we haven't thought of beyond what we call "god"? I am open to there being a god, but which one?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 5 months ago
Ahh, this was Atkins in his prime. A nice spry young age of 87. I fear that in recent years he's been falling prey to senility. I think you can even see some of the early warning signs in this video. Notice while Atkins speaks his eyes constantly chase a fly around the room that simply isn't there....he even goes on to postulate that nothing exists in the next part of the argument. When Peter? WHEN DID WE LOSE YOU!??!?!?!
scar504 5 months ago
@scar504 lol
ClamCrunchy 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Atkins Atkins Atkins, you think you can convince people to take your argument by insulting them? You think you can prove your argument is true by asserting first that it is and then trying to prove it? No. Take the God argument first as true, then prove why it cannot be! Peter Atkins makes all atheist like me around the world look like arrogant self-righteous know-it-alls who cannot properly defend an argument!
MannyXj1 5 months ago
@MannyXj1 Could you do better against Craig? people on youtube go crazy and get all mad sometimes, but i dont want you to do that. Just prove God doesnt exist. I dare you haha.
lukethebladesmith12 5 months ago
@lukethebladesmith12 It's not about proving anything... It's about who's argument is more rational. You can't prove or disprove a negative. I could do better than Atkins against Craig. You don't have to be special to do so, you just have to know what you're talking about.
MannyXj1 5 months ago
Comment removed
DeconversionCentral 5 months ago
@lukethebladesmith12
Until we are able to lift the box / vail / (define proper distinguishments) and "KNOW", The answer is BOTH. This is how the unknown is understood.
But things become worst, as there are key components of the "theist" God which create contradictions and any argument that uses it (theistic view) fails eternally.
Craig does make certain hypothetical arguments, but these are postulations, and the "premises" haven't been verified.
Craig believes "His" idea of God is axiomatic.
DeconversionCentral 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
claims without evidence or reason at all.....how cud he agst the greatest authority on earth!.
matthew11and28 5 months ago
claims without evidence or reason at all.....how cud he agst the greatest authority on earth!.
poor Mr. Atkins
matthew11and28 5 months ago
Adkins arguments were fueled only by competition, and wouldnt sound nearly as good without that British accent.
(like all other Atheist leaders)
daS3R10US 5 months ago
There is nothing to face. Can you prove, or even provide evidence that we are stupid as you claim? NO. Because that is your opinion.
daS3R10US 5 months ago
All I heard from Atkins were insults, excuses, and a British accent.
LBBSTOMAJCCDP 6 months ago 36
@LBBSTOMAJCCDP
For real! I was going to the comments section to right this, but you beat me to it.
LiveForGreatness 6 months ago
@LBBSTOMAJCCDP
What...did you plug your ears and pretend to lip read Atkins? The Bible and those propagating such folly is what is insulting, to all the world, and the possibility of an actual God, or simply put THE TRUTH.
Atkins addressed what can be understood best, that which explains the most with the fewest errors. Craig is all hypothetical rhetoric. He asks to disprove a negative. JOKE
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" - Thomas Jefferson
DeconversionCentral 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LBBSTOMAJCCDP
"All I heard from Atkins were insults, excuses, and a British accent."
Which, even if true, is still miles above the mere trite, hollow, oft-refuted piffle Craig puts forward.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
Comment removed
mnarich 4 months ago
@LBBSTOMAJCCDP
I agree, e.g., "...laziness. It's well-suited to armchair brains who prefer to indulge in adipose arguments. You're not here I trust because you're one of those."
Taltz911 4 months ago
@LBBSTOMAJCCDP lmao you're honest.
danielkirk1 4 months ago
@LBBSTOMAJCCDP I've little doubt that's all you heard .
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man had said can never be accurate, for he always unconsciously translates what he has heard into something he can understand."
-Bertrand Russell
CrateofStolenDirt 3 months ago in playlist DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins
@LBBSTOMAJCCDP
The British accent just doesn't seem to cover up the bitterness does it?
zenman23 2 months ago
@LBBSTOMAJCCDP There is no polite way to tell somebody their belief in invisible things is foolish
wallabees 1 week ago
@wallabees And the spirit/soul he mentions is also invisible, so is he therefore a fool?
MrLinkinparkrules 1 week ago
Atkins @ 7:43 " Which is now universally BELIEVED by scientists."
His own words!
Believed? So Atkins' science believes in something?
LOL
AzBirdDog 6 months ago
I'm sorry, But all's that Atkins is doing, is he's talking down about people who believe in religion, and calling them names in a fanciful way. He proves NOTHING!
He believes in the "Big Bang" but canot scientifically prove why he believes in it.
That to me is what?
Faith.
Lane brought questions and witness statements.
Atkins brought "You're too stupid to understand me."
AzBirdDog 6 months ago
@AzBirdDog
Word up man.
LiveForGreatness 6 months ago
@AzBirdDog If he's talking to theists, that's the best way to go about it. Let's face it, most theists do have a staggering amount of stupidity...
thejacalofskaro74 5 months ago
@AzBirdDog ...atkins is a typical atheist. every atheist that i have talked to or seen on youtube are complete assholes. i dont know why but thats just how it is i guess
ryand3rson 5 months ago
@AzBirdDog
"He believes in the "Big Bang" but canot scientifically prove why he believes in it."
There's a massive amount of scientific evidence for the Big Bang.
"Lane brought questions and witness statements."
Questions that have long been shown to be invalid. And what witness statements are you talking about? I hope not the quote mines Craig loves to use so much.
"Atkins brought You're too stupid to understand me."
And with Craig he may not be all that wrong.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago 3
i hate that stupid question asked by athiest "if god is real how come we cant see him"
you cant see your brain either but you know its there
pinball281 6 months ago
"hello thank you its a great pleasure to be here in this country. i came across the pond in search of a healthy debate, but now I realize i've been dooped into debating a moron. It would be a disgrace to my career to carry on any further, so I take leave. If it is not abundantly clear why Craig has shot himself in the foot, please consider learning mastering all fields of science. Otherwise, trust that scientists in every field know what they're talking about, because Craig obviously doesnt."
SezSays 7 months ago
@SezSa Did you mean duped? Doped, maybe? If you are so sure you're aware of everything and atheist's are the only ones able to make conclusions about religious questions, why is it you can't even spell? You are obviously able to be wrong. Could you be wrong about your interpretation of the sciences? Or don't you even know the controversy for atheism is theism? It's one or the other, Sez and you, my brother, could be wrong! So buck up and think like a man who understands truth by starting there.
lederereddy 7 months ago
@lederereddy Well if you ever wanted to prove that you dont understand science or the scientific method, that was the way to do it. Enjoy your ignorance, I'm sure your god gives you a happy little life to judge others from.
SezSays 7 months ago
@SezSays What do I mean by that? I mean, none of the sciences are conclusive about origins. That's why they're called theory's. All we have is evidence, not proof! The bible states that all creatures were created by God and they only produce their own kind. That's as demonstrable fact. Every organism on the face of the earth has a parent organism and each one is able to birth its own kind, bar none. You can say what you want but the facts are facts. Do you know scientifically 1st parents origin?
lederereddy 7 months ago
@SezSays Where was the first bee created? What was a bee before it was a bee? What was a monkey before it was a monkey? What was water before it was water? What was the universe before it was created? What is beyond the physical realm? How many realms are there? Could God exist? Is that possible? If He does, could He have made His existence known to some but not to others? If others have knowledge that you do not is their knowledge invalid just because you don't have it? Science's no help is it?
lederereddy 7 months ago
@UnitedFan16 "Craig is a great debater, his debating skills disguise his incredibly weak arguments and false claims"
Good try! But the fact remains it's the expose of information- True Vs False. All Craig does is expose the truth of His opponent's position. Atkins is just a terrible liar, speaks the truth, unwittingly admitting he believes BS because he hates God and believers.
"Atkins on the other hand is a terrible debater, which makes his valid arguments appear weak"
Bad try! Dumb arguments.
lederereddy 7 months ago
Peter Atkins does realize that he sounded like a cult leader in his introduction right?
philosophizer149 7 months ago
@punnet2 "The reality is we're not sure what happened prior to the big bang. Introducing a god doesn't help."... Ya, it doesn't help anything except explaining where everything came from.
This huge, powerful, extravagant occurrence happens, aptly named creation but no reason to think God did it. Atheist's are amusing, often. Maybe they don't understand the physical impossibilities that are forced into play by assuming nothing can actually explode into a working universe. It's asinine Bull Shit
lederereddy 7 months ago
@lederereddy Actually, it explains nothing -- it simply plugs a gap in our knowledge. People used "god" in the past to explain lightning, eclipses and disease, but as our knowledge increased, there were less gaps for your god to fit into.
Only an idiot (like you) would try to "explain" something huge, powerful and extravagant with something even huger, more powerful, and more extravagant -- essentially replacing a mystery with an even bigger mystery.
punnet2 7 months ago
@punnet2 's exactly what it implies a coyote is a kind of dog (canine) a Shetland is a kind of horse a bass is a kind of fish an oak a kind of tree a poppy a kind of plant amungus a kind of fungus and they are unique, observably non interbreeding, non intersecting glitches in the proposed theory that everything is related. That's just how it is, my friend. We can't observe what happened, so I suppose they were made by God and you nature. According to observed evidence there's always been kinds.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy I asked for a definition of "kind", not examples. Do you have a definition? Noone that has used this "produce it's own 'kind'" argument has been able to actually define it.
punnet2 6 months ago
@lederereddy Consider these statements:
Poodles & boxers are different "kinds" of domestic dog.
Domestic dogs & wolves are different "kinds" of canine.
Caucasoids and mongoloids are different "kinds" of H. sapiens.
Sapiens & neanderthals are different "kinds" of human.
Humans & canines are different "kinds" of mammal.
Mammals & reptiles are different "kinds" of animal.
Animals, plants, fungi & bacteria are different "kinds" of living things.
With which do you agree and disagree?
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 "I asked for a definition of "kind", not examples.
The trouble with my definition has more to do with your clumsy position as an atheist forcing you to make obvious, but hopefully out of character, retarded replies like this.
Giving examples is defining!
playing stupid doesn't help you. A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort:
Underlying character the class to which a thing belongs.
b. The natural order or course of things; nature, essence
get it?
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy So your definition of kind is "a group of individuals sharing common traits"? Excellent! As you should realize, humans have common traits with all other living things, from chimpanzees to dogs to fish to plants and bacteria. And of course, the commonality of traits lines up with the amount of common DNA. So your own definition of "kind" accepts evolution. Get it?
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 Every theory's based on evidence? True, but! The theory is a fallible human being's interpretation of the evidence! The bottom line is you and I and the scientist's, we're all subject to believing it by faith. That is a fact. A fact is something we don't have to believe by faith. Example: Today you look in the mirror and count 32 teeth! You have 32 teeth is a fact! Imagining that you'll have 32 teeth tomorrow is faith. You do not know! But in your mind, it's more a fact, huh? Why?...
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy Yes, theories can (and have) been modified or replaced based on new evidence. Which is why geocentricity or Newtonian physics were reasonable based on the knowledge at the time and could even be usefully applied; but as more evidence was gathered, they were replaced by better theories.
Your worthless bible, however, has no evidence for its ridiculous claims, and NO USEFUL APPLICATION.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 It's not that simple. It's a study to get all the information and frankly I,m not the idiot jumping to the conclusion, you are. You heard something somewhere and it fits your view so you're assuming that you have the better answer. And your wrong.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@punnet2 "the bible's endorsement of slavery and genocide
- it's (?classification?wtf?)of bats as birds" cute! lol!
Very Good! Now we'll see, huh!
Where, pray tell does the bible endorse slavery? The bible gives accounts of slavery. The bible denounces slavery. The bible judges those who commit slave trade but you, my friend will never find one single verse endorsing it
Bats/birds Yeah and you text'd someone saying you watched the sunset. Do flying squirrels fly? No.
Its a description. So wut
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy So you're not even aware of the bible verses that sanction slavery? Haven't you read your bible? (Once again, we see the christtards aren't familiar with their own scripture). There's multiple passages, for example Lev.25:44-46. Now, I might have missed it but please provide ONE PASSAGE where the bible denounces slavery. Just one.
And, wrong again. In Lev 11:13-19, bats are listed among "fowls". It's not just a description; it's an erroneous classification.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 "Genocide"
In context, God’s commands are perfectly consistent with justice and mercy. The Canaanites, Sodomites etc were being judged and the sentence was capitol punishment. It's that simple. God's illustrated throughout history that He alone rules with ultimate and lasting power. FYI, you and I are next. Ready for that? It's coming.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy So when god commands killing off every last man, woman AND child -- and sometimes keeping the young virgins for some unknown purpose -- then it's perfectly acceptable. Otherwise, it's wrong?
Perhaps a poorly educated sheep like you can respect a god like that; I can't.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 "inconsistencies Matthew/Luke regarding the time of Jesus' birth" There's an inconsistency about the time? How do you know? The record has to be traced through genealogy, one from Adam to Mary and the other is Josephs genealogy. Is there two different dates? No! Do you bother to think before you post this crap?
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy I was actually referring to Matthew placing jesus' birth under Herod's reign, and Luke placing it during the governership of Quirinius. Quirinius did not become governor until 9 years after Herod's death.
punnet2 6 months ago
@lederereddy As far as the genealogies: Both end with Joseph; Mary is not mentioned as part of Matthew's geneaology, but only as Joseph's wife.
Joseph is Matthat's son in one, and Matthat's grandson in another.
Luke's genealogy is 15 generations longer than Matthew's. That comes out to at least a couple hundred years.
I think it's you who really needs to do some thinking. You've obviously never done so before.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 the geneologies split at davids two sons nathan and solomon, if u split virtually anybodies geneology u will likely not get the same number
super17sd 6 months ago
@super17sd And they come back together at Shealtiel/Zerubabbel, and both end with Joseph (not Mary, as apologists try to claim).
In any case, there is a difference of 16 generations, not just a few. That implies hundred of years difference. Even if you speculate that the extraneous generations begat on average at 10 years, that still comes to a difference 160+ years.
punnet2 6 months ago
@lederereddy Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, has only gained confirmation as our knowledge has increased. Darwin based his theory on the morphology of living things he observed in one part of the world; he had no extensive knowledge of the fossil record or DNA. The data that these have provided, however, have each in turn reinforced the theory, not undermined it.
Humans are fallible, but when discussing science, you, the christ-blinded ignoramus, are obviously the fallible one.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 Why?... Because you strongly deny the possibility of loosing a tooth or two, by tomorrow. Never the less, your feelings are invalid. The fact is you do not know if you'll even have a head tomorrow. Point being? That's how it is a bout origins and macro evo. Your feelings about what's true are fallible. You believe by faith and no matter how strong you feel the evidence is, you could still be wrong. Being objective and honest about that, brings you into a place of respect for opposition.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@punnet2 "All male mammals have useless nipples"
So I guess you won't mind having yours snipped off?
Look, anyone standing on the sidelines of the reality of what it actually takes to create a human being in the same fashion, using the same materials, etc, who can out do Gods, so you say, clumsy, stupid work, I will respect their critique. But you can't even create a gnat. You create turds, so why would I ever consider your obvious slanted opinion? Can you top Gods work? I'd like to see that!
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy So in fact, you're not able to defend the "intelligent design" of male nipples -- despite a ridiculous attempt with aesthetics and sensuality (you were too ignorant to know that ALL male mammals have useless nipples). That's merely one of countless egregious imperfections which we would not expect from some all-powerful creator.
Can I top "god's work"? Pardon me, but you're yet to prove there is a god. You've been trying to prove it by design, and as we can see you've failed.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 Please answer these simple questions, thanks!
1) Is creation evidence for the possibility that creation was created by an intelligence at least smart enough to make the earth and all its creatures?
2)Is God a possibility? Or do you really believe science has enough evidence to absolutely rule out Gods existence?
3)Besides God Himself, what would you accept as evidence if you reject everything God has made as evidence?
4)Why don't you respect theist's for accepting creation as evidence?
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy
1) "Creation" would be evidence that it was "created" (that's a circular argument, genius); however, you're yet to establish that the universe or living things are instances of "creation".
2) There could be a god, but without evidence for one, there's no reason to believe. Science doesn't disprove god, but as science advances, we see there's nothing for a god to do.
3) Because their reasoning is ignorant and flawed, as your statements clearly indicate. Why respect stupidity?
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 So you have read the bible? When and in what context? Did you have a teacher or did you just read the book? An amazing thing about scripture is realizing what's really being said, thru careful examination. We get it wrong, often. We're men. What kind of relationship did you have with your dad? Did he ever ask you to do something you were certain was the wrong way or thing to do, only to later realize he was right? As a teen, I was sure my dad was stupidbut he proved he wasn't. My point?
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy Yes, I've read the bible. I actually took several courses in college on scripture (I was thinking of becoming a priest). And I agree: It's important to realize what's actually being said; for example, how the gospel writers manipulated details for their audience, and how there's actually hardly any evidence for a historical jesus.
I never set out to stop believing. I pursued study to deepen my faith, and as a result I ended up losing it.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 My point is simple, punnet2. God is a person, like your father. He has set it up this way so we can understand how to approach Him. No matter what your father is in your eyes, good or bad or average. In his heart he hopes to be someone who you admire and respect. He wants to impart wisdom and direction, especially if he failed to. He's a man with a human heart. Do you honor your father, somehow? Do you call him? Ask for advice? Thank him for at least for his part in you existence?
lederereddy 6 months ago
@punnet2 Do you want to know God? Honor your father and your mother, no matter how you feel inside. Change your strategy. Instead of looking for a thing, approach God as you would a man. Politely and respectfully. God's not angry with you, punnet! But you are in a terrifying position, being hard headed and hard hearted. I'm going to give you some simple advise. Please take it!!! You and I are just scared kids fighting to understand what went wrong. Stop fighting and trust God. Can you do that?
lederereddy 6 months ago
@punnet2 A definition of sanity is being able to adapt our attitude to any situation and access the greatest outcome. If you died today and God does exist, is there a reason He should accept you into His house? What do you expect from God? Do you expect more from God? Or could you thank Him for something? There are things you can't possibly know about Jesus, Punnet. Simply because your attitude overrides your humility. But that's the awesome thing about freewill. You can change that right now.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@punnet2 "I never set out to stop believing. I pursued study to deepen my faith, and as a result I ended up losing it"
It's a mistake to try to replace God with knowledge. We are only men. I assure you, you have jumped the gun and assumed some portion of scripture is wrong. But you're wrong and the only way for you to realize your error is by finding one or two of these so called mistakes God made and pray for His understanding of the passage. If you can muster the humility, I pray He meets you.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy You just admitted that you have to remain ignorant to be a good, believing christian.
"...only men"? Th bible is a product of "only men", and rather ignorant ones at that. I DID NOT assume scripture was wrong; like you, I once ASSUMED it was 100% correct. It was only after actually studying it that I realized it had errors.
You choose proudly to remain ignorant, since that's the only way you can hold your original assumption that the bible is correct.
punnet2 6 months ago
@lederereddy Let's see you "pray" your way around:
- the bible's endorsement of slavery and genocide
- it's classification of bats as birds
- the geologically and biologically impossible great flood story
- the inconsistencies between matthew and luke regarding the time of jesus' birth. In fact, if you think you have the balls, take Dan Barker's "Easter Challenge" (google it), and "pray" your way around the inconsistencies in the resurrection story in the gospels and acts.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 ""Creation" would be evidence that it was "created" (that's a circular argument, genius)"
The fact is everything is created, genius. It's only a matter of by whom or what created it. It's not circular reasoning to infer a supernatural event occurred when nature can't explain the fact that life, against any reasonable odds is here anyway. And that goes for thousands of miraculous, impossible physical challenges noted in existence such as stars, planets, moons, water, many elements, etc.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy The fact is, you're dodging your burden of proof in saying everything is "created", genius. Crystals and snowflakes (again), are not "created". They are examples of order emerging naturally, without any designer.
It is unreasonable to infer a supernatural event for no other reason than we lack a natural explanation; it is reasonable to simply say "we don't know". As history has shown, we have continuously replaced "we don't know" with a natural explanation.
punnet2 6 months ago
@lederereddy In other words, you are simply relying on a trite argument from ignorance: "We don't have a natural explanation for X, so it must be a magical god".
Exactly what do you mean by "impossible physical challenges"? More than likely, you have no idea what your'e taking about (again). You've shown repeatedly you lack any scientific knowledge, and as one of your previous posts indicates, you're rather proud of the fact you lack knowledge.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 "a ridiculous attempt with aesthetics and sensuality"
This btw is a perfect example of your bias overruling your ability to accept evidence. The "fact" is those are at least two (2) reasons for males to have nipples. How many reasons do you need? 3, 4, 10? Besides, as I said before bad design is only your opinion. Don't keep using stupid arguments, then retort as if you haven't. You and anyone who tries saying there's no evidence for (design in anatomy) needs to look the words up.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy Please answer directly: Did your god put nipples on ALL MALE MAMMALS, for the sake of aesthetics and sensuality? This includes dogs, whales, walruses, etc.. Are you claiming that walruses gain some sensual gratification from theirs, or bats (who are BLIND) appreciate their aesthetics?
And still waiting (among other points you've avoided) to explain why bats have useless eyes; why humans have blind spots and squid don't; and turkeys have better eyesight than humans.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 "humans have common traits with all other living things, from chimpanzees to dogs to fish to plants and bacteria"
No shit, Sherlock! We were all created by the same Maker. He wanted some to see, some to use sonar, some to walk some to hop some to talk some to swim.But most of all He wanted to create man in His own image. He set you apart from every other living creature. Do you realize the responsibility of that? Do you realize what a privilege that is? An awesome gift to... piss away?
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy Wrong, Watson! Common traits are a result of common genetics. Once again (pay attention!): Your DNA wasn't "made" to be similar to your siblings'; it's similar because you received it from the same source (your parents). Your DNA is similar to your cousins' (but less similar than to your siblings') because it's from the same source (your grandparents). Human and chimp DNA (and all other livings things) is similar for the same reason: common ancestry. No "maker" required.
punnet2 6 months ago
"in his own image"? So your god has vertebrae, an appendix, a digestive tract, a penis (if so, is it circumcised?), eyes with blind spots (unlike squid) and ... nipples for his own aesthetic/sensual satisfaction?
And what exactly do you mean by "set apart"? I'm pretty sure I know how you'll respond, since I've heard the argument several times before (and you're hardly original), but if you could describe exactly what you mean, it will demonstrate again how poorly educated you are.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 I realize I've corrected you on several counts which you haven't acknowledged and I understand that!!! It's unpleasant to be corrected by someone you may not respect but I adjure you to at least quietly take a good look at how you've been trained to overlook the reality of scientific method, encouraged to ignore what's truly observable evidence and replace it with what's said to be observable evidence. Not by me or some religious group but by evolutionists. Do you see that? Askurselfwhy
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy Exactly what do you claim to have corrected me on? If anything, I've been correcting your ignorance of science so far.
Not sure where you get this crack-brained idea that anyone's keeping you from "using" science, or that you "have" to be atheist. Ken Miller and Francis Collins are both believing christians who accept the theory of evolution, and oppose the teaching of intelligent design. There's no scientific evidence for god or intelligent design, so there is no controversy.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 Seriously! Why would evolutionists be so insistent about who is able to use science and who isn't? It's naive to think observers of the natural world can only be objective if they don't believe in God. But that was the supreme courts decision no more than a year ago! Only atheist's are able to understand nature! How ludicrous!... That's exactly what religious fanatics do (itc atheist's). They can't help it. Their fear of being wrong's too compelling, so, muzzle the controversy! Sickshit
lederereddy 6 months ago
@punnet2 People trying to force their beliefs on others is some sick shit, isn't it? How would you like it if Christians were trying to keep you from ever even seeing a biology book that depicts the theory of evolution? Shouldn't everyone have the freedom to learn the controversy of a matter before deciding which is true and which isn't? Atheist's have resisted this and turned into the religious freaks of the Scopes trial, who demanded evolution theory wasn't science. Truth? Evidence's for both.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy The evidence for evolution is conclusive, and you even admitted it. You accept microevolution. You simply refuse to believe many stages of microevolution add up to larger changes. That's about as intelligent as saying you can't cover a large distance by taking many small steps.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 Only 1% of the sun's energy reaches earth, while the other 99% goes off into space, unused. That's just plain stupid.
Hahahahaha! That's just plain stupid! Of coarse you, being an atheist, would twist truth into some little bs senario. WTF? Am I supposed to take you serious? The whole fucking cosmos is miraculously favorable for life on earth. If it were ANY different, your ungrateful ass wouldn't be breathing.
Suffices to say you lose that argument from (ignorance) Defined: to ignore!
lederereddy 6 months ago
You're too dense to see the problem. Stars are highly inefficient energy sources. That would be like starting a forest fire to toast a marshmallow or building a car which gets 1 millimeter per gallon. Not to mention that our sun is a 3rd generation star, which would be like building a vehicle and melting it down twice, in order to make the barely usable final version.
If that's the best "design" your god could come up with for providing a source of energy to a planet, your god's an idiot.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 Besides, you believe! Out of the heart the mouth speaks truth. Heard that before? Listen to yourself if you don't believe me. We're either praising God or cursing Him by using His name in vain. It's our sinful nature as His created son or daughter. None of us can help it. There are lots of popular sayings but not everyone uses the same ones except when it comes to our our Maker Jesus Christ. You cursed Christ 10 x today? & a alcoholic spent half hour explaining why he's not a alcoholic.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy So are you actually arguing that when someone says "goddammit" or "jesus f*n christ", that implies they believe in god? If so, you're not very bright.
We still use the terms "sunrise" and "sunset", even though we know that's not what the sun does.
We still say Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday, even though we don't believe in Wotan, Thor & Saturn.
We still call the planets Venus, Mars, Juppiter, etc., so does that mean we still believe in the Roman gods?
Get a brain, please.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 "complexity can arise out of simplicity"
Bull! Give one single example of nature arranging complex, multilevel engineering designs outside biology and I'll quit right now! Skip the snowflake and rippled sand BS. That's not engineering, building, complex or design. It's a single, reactionary response to heat, cold, wind, etc. In other words "Nature fails when it comes to engineering. That is why we understand the existence of an unseen but obvious person capable of complexity in creation
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy What do you mean "skip the snowflake"? Snowflakes, crystals, Fibonacci sequences in shells and pine cones...there are countless examples of emergent order and complexity. Computer simulations even demonstrate that a simple set of rules can yield highly complex patterns (look up cellular automata and "Game of Life" if you actually want to get educated). Of course it's not engineering -- and neither is biology.
Cells & DNA are a natural phenomenon, just like snowflakes.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 "you can't help me understand the existence of your god--since you have(no)evidence for your god, and all you can do is dodge"
All of your posts are dodging. You have never once produced any argument for your position. All you can muster is this redundant chant about how I have no proof.
I must be bored to put up with your meaningless ramblings.
God help you? But why? You reject The Lord who could save you from such stupidity of your surroundings. Who the fuck am I to try to help you...
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy Actually, I did, and you acknowledged it. You agree that mutation and adaptation occurs, and that it is observable. You simply content that continuous stages of microevolution do not lead to macroevolution. That makes about as much sense as saying short distances do not add up to long distances.
And you can't provide a concrete definition of "kind", which of course makes your argument meaningless, that one "kind" cannot become another "kind".
punnet2 6 months ago
@lederereddy Again: The same DNA analysis that proves you are related to your parents, siblings and cousins proves you are related to other living things. As far as humans, the fossil record shows the gradual development of upright posture and larger cranial size. Exactly what you would expect from evolution, and not from a god who likes to play with clay & ribs.
The DNA evidence alone is enough to prove evolution, but for someone as ignorant as you, the fossil record should make it clear.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 "Stop being a coward"
Good advice! Try it! And I mean do just that. The evidence for the resurrection is available and presented by sound men, with clear conscience, in legal format, allowing the evidence to speak for itself. The easiest one to understand, in my opinion, has an accredited background in investigation as the lead editor of The Chicago Tribune, Lee Strobel. Remember, you said I have (no) evidence. That's dodging truth, friend. You are guilty and your posts declare it.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy "The evidence for the resurrection is available..." -- and yet you can't tell us what it is, despite being asked several times. If you think the writer of "Case for christ" presents the strongest argument for the resurrection, you're more gullible than I thought. He doesn't even believe that Mark, Matthew and Luke are synoptic.
And I guess you're still scrounging around for the evidence of Clay Man/Rib Woman and Talking Snake. Let me know how that's going...
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 "it raises the likelihood that life developed through natural means, which is a more reasonable explanation than yours, since it makes no appeal to the supernatural, but operates fully within the physical laws"
You're overriding the lead the evidence is demanding? Why? Don't you know that if life could (naturally) self generate, it would? It doesn't, because it can't. Therefore, do not purposely sabotage the evidence in order to satisfy your preconceived world view, atheism.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@punnet2 "And DNA/RNA do not indicate precision engineering."
Only an atheist could examine the engineering involved in cell construction, ignore bio-mechanics, ignore the entire embryonic system which is separate from the DNA/RNA system and try to sway the gullible into the notion that what they are looking at is basic, even bad engineering? I am blown away by your presumptuousness.
BTW You need to stay current. There is new info all the time revealing the true uses of so called junk DNA, etc.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@punnet2 "cancer, birth defects and other tragedies are all the result of mistakes that occur during DNA replication"
Just as easily explained by sin. Man is still under the same exact curse written down by Moses. We will die.
Get your head around this! That was written 3500 years ago and it stands today. If man is truly the only god in town, why hasn't he overruled that decree? All the atheists in the world can't change a single line of scripture though you've been trying since the beginning.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy So you originally argued that DNA was obviously proof of your god. Yet when I pointed out to you (since you obviously didn't know) that DNA regularly produces tragic results (and is in fact guaranteed to), you respond that is obviously proof of sin. You perhaps don't realize how duplicit your thinking is.
And of course, sin for you is the result of Clay Man and Rib Woman eating an apple after being tricked into it by Talking Snake. Where's the evidence for that again?
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 "None of this indicates an intelligent designer."
Like I said, look up the word (ignorance) It's a derivative meaning "to ignore"
Have you ignored the fact that eyes are cameras? Haven't you ignored the fact that God has made literally trillions of trillions of intricate chemical signals that if not obeyed all of life would fail to exist at the cellular level? It is designed for a purpose! He's built you a body to control for a time. What will you do with His gift? Hate and mock Him?
lederereddy 6 months ago
@punnet2 "What is so "masterful" about useless nipples on males?" Are you a eunuch? Ignorance again! Of coarse the male nipple has its uses! It's esthetically much more appealing. It's a sensual organ. It's visually a centerpiece for masculinity. Not just for lovers but in general. There are no tails in human embryo's, Punny boy. You've been duped again! Those cells that appear to look like tails and gills have all been accounted for as underdeveloped organs like the spine. More ignorance.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy LOL - so you're saying your "masterful" god gave males nipples for AESTHETIC and SENSUAL purposes? And they just happen to correspond to the mammary glands on females? So...did god put them on dogs and whales for the same reason? (All male mammals have useless nipples, in case you didn't know).
punnet2 6 months ago
@lederereddy And you're wrong, yet again. Ask any embryologist: The human fetus develops the vestigial tail (complete with vertebrae), then loses it between weeks 4 and 8. The exact same phenomenon is noticed in the embryonic development of chimpanzees and other primates. In those species that do not lost the formation, it becomes the tail.
First it was the the physicists, now the embryologists: The ignorant bible-flipper thinks he knows more than scientists actually working in their field.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 That's the real truth, my friend. There is evidence for both creation and the biblical account and evidence for the theory of macro evolution but neither is conclusive. There is just no way to know for certain whether you'll die and face a loving God, an evil God, or just cease to exist but there is a way to meet God before death. The evidence for that is as simple as the fact that your whole being is ready made for one main objective and that's relationships, hence eyes,ears,mouth,mind
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy Amen. And once that meeting takes place... then and only then does one understand scripture and begins to learn that fearing God is actually freedom to go about ones life fearlessly. Walking in God's righteousness is then followed by permanent station with Him. Just knock, He will answer.
BlowethTheCoals 6 months ago
@punnet2 arms and hands that face forward, posture of embrace, a heart of internal complexity, max factors of immeasurable knowledge an intuitions aka instincts. My friend, that's where you meet The Creator, Jesus Christ, there in the throne room of your being, where there are no lies, because it's just you and God... That's where He is, now and where He's always been, by your side, seeing every hope, satisfaction and disappointment and that's the place He will answer eternal questions.Get there
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy Wow. A whole bunch of posts, and still NO EVIDENCE to support your belief in the Clay Golem/Rib Woman/Talking Snake/Burning Bush/Virgin-born, Water-walking Zombie story. You keep claiming there's evidence, yet refuse to provide any. All you can do is show how ignorant you are about both science, and now, even your own scriptures.
At least be honest enough to admit you have no evidence for your beliefs, and are simply running on faith fumes.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 "So exactly what were these "staunchest standards", when was this and by whom?"
Study! Look into it! Along with the history of bible, biblical prophecy and apologetics. Good scholars allow the evidence to speak for itself. The bible and archeology from an atheist's point of view don't exist. But the bible and archeology from archeology's point of view are synonymous!
lederereddy 6 months ago
@punnet2 "So exactly what were these "staunchest standards", when was this and by whom?"
Study! Look into it! Along with the history of bible, biblical prophecy and apologetics. Good scholars allow the evidence to speak for itself. The bible and archeology from an atheist's point of view don't exist. But the bible and archeology from archeology's point of view are synonymous! Evidence- Google- "The search for the real Mount Sinai" and youtube- "Digging for the truth" Read 1st cen Roman history.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy In other words...you don't know. You obviously haven't studied it, as you didn't know the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery undermined your bible's claim to primacy, as it indicated there were other versions of the scriptures in circulation. At least have the honesty to admit you didn't know that (you said, "The DSS are the bible!"). If you in fact did know this, then again (2nd time now!): explain HOW the canonical writings were separated from the non-canonical, WHEN and BY WHOM.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 "Cells & DNA are a natural phenomenon, just like snowflakes. "
I rest my case. You, sir are a retard.
Ohhhh, maybe you're right? After all cornflakes and a space shuttles are equally complex. Anything could create them. Good luck to ya!
lederereddy 6 months ago
@punnet2 "you can't tell us what it is"
The misconception you presented "there's no evidence for the resurrection" is false.
I know it already!
But I'm not your tutor!
If you don't mind being a blathering ninny, don't investigate.
I gave you references and all I get back is excuses and more insults!
If I thought you cared about the evidence I'd bend over backwards to help you.
But you're not interested in a fair discussion about the evidence.
You have decided you know more than God 4 petesake!
lederereddy 6 months ago
Sorry, sheeply one. A story about a resurrection is not proof of the resurrection. Not even 4 different versions of the story, which contradict each other in many details. The resurrection only makes sense if you already believe in it. I'm sure you reject the ridiculous, supernatural claims of other religions without any trouble. You simply don't apply that rational thinking to your own ridiculous, supernatural beliefs.
And of course I know more than god, if god doesn't exist!
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 "Your arguing when someone says "goddammit" or "jesus"
All your illustrations were words we use in association with certain objects. That varies from one language to the next. Cursing God is universal, exponential and personal. You're in denial, so you refuse to accept the responsibility for your actions. We have always known it's wrong, but time and effort wear down our conscience until it's just another word.Christ takes His name serious and there's consequences for every idle word.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy Way to backtrack, fool. You know full well they're just colloquialisms -- the same way people use "insha allah (god willing)" as a figure of speech in muslims countries. Those phrases you're desperately clinging to are part of our vernacular because christianity has been part of our culture for so long (as "Wednesday" and "January" indicate the influence of Norse and Roman culture on ours). That doesn't mean christianity is actually true.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 You seem to think there's no consequence for your attitude toward God. That "old, poorly written book" could help you but your attitude does need adjusting and quickly I might add. Do you know anything about the bible? There is not one piece or one group of literature that equals its quality, demand, its number, its translations, the premises for which it was written. Its nothing short of phenomenon, but again, you, an atheist, haven't blinked before committing intellectual suicide.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy Your desperation is getting worse, since you're now resorting to threats, which are as unproven as the god you're backing them up with.
I'm willing to wager I know the bible better than you. Exactly what is the extend of your study? And sorry, a book that is scientifically inaccurate, morally reprehensible, and altogether absurd is no help to me.
And exactly what are you referring to when you mean "quality"? From a literary standpoint, much of the bible is worthless.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 "In other words...you don't know. You obviously haven't studied it, as you didn't know the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery undermined your bible's claim to primacy..."
Do you know why you jump to conclusions so fast? It's because your gullible You have no clue what your saying. You assume, assume, assume. But you don't ask questions about the realities of what you're taught. I do and I' have for thirty years. You don't have to be a scholar to know the value of Dead Sea Scrolls, tard.
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy I've jumped to no conclusions. I pointed out (correctly) that the DSS showed there were scriptures in use which are not in your particular version of the bible. I simply asked you (3 times now!) to outline the methodology for determining the canon which you so slavishly believe in, and when and by whom it was applied. Your 've repeated failure to answer this direct question is reasonable indication that you don't know.
Or...you could stop being a tard and answer now.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 There's only one kind of idiot blind enough to make as many ignorant statements as you have and that's an atheist. So caught up in the grandiosity of your selfish little world that you imagine that all the intelligent applications of study, the labor and sweat of anyone that doesn't think like you is invalid. Your a pathetic little puke and someday you'll choke on it. You get no more respect. You never earned it in the first place but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Go evolve
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy Oh, don't get your wool in a knot, you sheeply little christian. I plainly asked you for EVIDENCE of your belief in the story of the Clay, the Rib, & the Talking Snake (and the Water-Walking Zombie), several times. Your evidence? NONE.
You can't huff and puff your way around your ignorance of general science (go ask your high school for a refund), or your lack of evidence for the absurd Bronze Age myths you believe in. Go get raptured.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 "you are simply relying on a (trite?) argument"
Hardly a trite argument when in fact it's the only other possible answer.
"Exactly what do you mean by "impossible physical challenges?"
Being an atheist, I'm sure the details oppressing your theory manage to escape the consequence of your scrutiny. But none the less, they're very real! Let's start with the day a dirt clod decided to eat, shit, breath, reproduce, and move about. Physical impossibility. That is a fact. Then the nonexistent-
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy Wrong. Another possible answer is: There's a natural explanation, and we just haven't discovered it yet.
If you think science claims a "dirt clod" decided to "eat", or that a "cell" decided to "build plants and animals", you're more ignorant than you've been letting on.
punnet2 6 months ago
@punnet2 and imaginary cell got bored and decided to build plants and animals by shear will and pull yourself up by the bootstraps good old fashioned ingenuity. But cells are incapable of making any decisions so mother nature pounded the cell into a pollywog and then it pounded the pollywog into a frog. All of this just happened to happen on a planet that had been busy making all the prior arrangements needed for a cell to come alive. Physical impossibility means "it didn't happen" Not naturally
lederereddy 6 months ago
@punnet2
All of your bible critiques are typical, atheistic slanders that have long been addressed in perfectly logical terms. There are no inconsistencies because God doesn't make mistakes. You were shown inconsistency and you had no faith so you gave up. Lot's of us do. The amazing thing is there's a good explanation for all those accusations. Only truth could stand even 1/10 of the worlds scrutiny. The bible does it in stride. Your clock's ticking, Punnet. That's a fact. God's hoping you stop
lederereddy 6 months ago
@lederereddy
Once again (pay attention, now!): If you think something huge like the universe requires a cause (which you label god), then by your very own "logic", something huger (like your god) requires a cause all the more. Conversely: If you're comfortable believing something as huge as your god can exist without a cause, by your very own "logic", you should be all the more comfortable believing that something less huge (like the universe) can exist without a cause.
punnet2 7 months ago
@punt2 "something huger (like your god) requires a cause all the more" Sorry friend but you're wrong. Science, though it doesn't tell us everything, (as I'm sure was planned given the nature of it) does tell us many things. 1) Physical properties and the laws or in other words limitations governing them. We know that something can't be created from nothing. Every atom created was created on the day of creation they can only be transformed not eliminated. What made us is outside of created things
lederereddy 7 months ago
@punnet2 Knowing that the universe had a specific beginning only solidifies the need for God and that I say only because it's obvious that God has put the very well know laws governing what it will and will not do right down to the next meal that goes on your plate and the next breath you will take. There's no chance that life would have risen out of the oblivion you claim! Secondly, it has no chance of making & organizing cells into configurations that counter the hostilities imposed by nature.
lederereddy 7 months ago
@lederereddy Actually, no. Physicist Stephen Hawking, for one, has said in his recent book that no god is necessary to explain the origin of the universe; that it can and will create itself from nothing.
As far as "life": While abiogenesis is a relatively new field of study, there already is scientific data such as the Miller experiment which point to a natural origin to the building blocks of life, again with no need for a supernatural agent.
punnet2 7 months ago
@punnet2 Well if you want to stay within the outlines of what is considered the strictest or even the loosest interpretation of the scientific method, it doesn't matter what Stephen Hawking's said in his book. What matters is what can be tested, repeated and confirmed right here and right now. take for instance Miller/Uery's experiment. What was spread through the media then was that they had successfully demonstrated how the building blocks of life could form, a billion years ago. The media...
lederereddy 7 months ago
@lederereddy Actually, what Hawking says matters, since he's one of the scientists that creationists quote-mine when arguing for the existence of god. Craig, for example, cites him by name when trying to back up his 1st premise in the Kalam argument: "the universe began to exist".
And you're right: What matters is what can be tested. So let us know when you can actually scientifically test for your god's existence, instead of arguing from ignorance.
punnet2 7 months ago
@punnet2 Science teaches us that the universe began to exist before Hawking's came along. Any conjecture about how it came to exist is absolutely unfounded by anyone breathing and especially anyone who thinks they could know something that happened before they were born, that's untestable by scientific means. If he said he's shown how things could have began to exist physically, using natural, physical means? He's lying and you're eating it up. Read the fine print. He knows what we know, nada!
lederereddy 7 months ago