Shit, where to begin? You didn't flat out say it but I'm guessing you're an evolution denier. Well, transitional fossils do exist. A couple of the most notable ones are archaeopteryx and Australopithecus afarensis. Some whales still have leg bones inside their bodies. There are many other examples of vestigial structures throughout the animal kingdom. I'm not going to sit here and type the all mountains of evidence and examples of evolution's validity. Take it from one of your own. Here's a quote from Francis Collins, a devout Christian that played a large role in the human genome project. "It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that." Look, I've had the privilege of thoroughly studying evolution and biology in college and I will tell you it's fact whether you want to believe it or not. You need to find a way to reconcile your religious beliefs with evidence and fact. I've typed enough. If you want more google "God of the gaps" and here's a website for radiometric dating, which is verifiably accurate.
Thanks for your reply. There are scientific points both for and against atheism. I can't help but note, the evolution they teach you in college is biased. Maybe you should see it in a different light as well, for that I recommend watching some of Kent Hovind's videos. Either way, believe what you want, peace out man.
That's the thing, scientific evidence is the opposite of biased. It is coldly factual and evolves when presented with new studies that dispute previously held beliefs. There is no agenda, no ideology, and no motive other than the truth. For those reasons it is the exact opposite of religion. And Kent hovind is a dishonest twat desperately clinging to implausible ideas that were long ago dismissed by the logical scientific community. Like I said, you need to reconcile your faith with facts. If you wanna say God set the evolutionary process in motion, then great. If you want say the bible is to be taken metaphorically, have at it. But denying what has been scientifically proven makes you look like a complete moron prime for an institution to anyone with the slightest scientific knowledge.
You speak of scientists like holy men. Remember that our species is one of greed and thirst for power. Money can control people, scientists as much as say, pastors. I don't believe in the infallability of scientific records and experiments, but not saying that's a major issue either. Just remember to take anything with a grain of salt.
And don't forget that scientists are still disputing among themselves.
I consider myself fairly advanced in my scientific knowledge, and when I hear something said I don't stick my fingers in my ears and chant. If I do so, please enlighten me.
You don't stick your fingers in your ears and ignore scientific evidence? Then please tell me why you choose to deny the evidence of evolution? Tell me why the fossil record, vestigial structures, DNA evidence, ring species, similar embryology, observed germ evolution, geographic marsupial location, and any credible scientist is ignored. Hell, even the Vatican acknowledges evolution. Well, if you're having trouble answering that question I can answer it for you. It's because the facts collide with your faith and you desperately don't want to believe it's true. Well, I'm sorry but your emotions don't trump facts. I'm really not trying to be a dick here but fuck! I'll give you an opportunity to refute my examples. Give me one, just one, example of credible scientific evidence, that means no creationist website propaganda, that contradicts evolution.
Sorry. Could you please expand on the scientific points against atheism? Why do you think the evolution taught at college is biased?
Kent Hovind is a conspiracy theorist. That's a pretty good indicator that he makes claims but lacks evidence to support them. Even fellow creationists criticise him.
In particular AiG (Answers in Genesis) criticized Hovind for "persistently us[ing] discredited or false arguments" and said Hovind's claims are "self-refuting".
Creationist astronomer Hugh Ross, of Reasons To Believe, debated Hovind on the age of the Earth during the John Ankerberg Show, televised nationally on the Inspiration Network in September through October 2000. Ross said Hovind was "misrepresenting the field" of different sciences, and Ross told Hovind: "Astronomers view the credibility of the 'Young Earth' as being much weaker than that for a flat Earth."
If a creationist astronomer is criticising the whole "Young Earth" concept as weaker than the "flat Earth" myth, you know this man isn't credible.
I noted my main ones already, but to list all the little ones I would need to get my text books out and slave at my desk for a week or two to get the majority.
And in my school, we are taught evolution not as a hypothesis, but rather a fact. There's a little anecdote for you.
As to Hovind, that's the first time I hear such things about the guy, given time, I'll look into them. But what do you think is wrong about conspiracy theorists? And did you know of Hovind before I mentioned him, or did you google him?
P.S. I only just realised the cleverness of your username...I feel dumb.
Come and let us discuss atheism.
← View full post
Shit, where to begin? You didn't flat out say it but I'm guessing you're an evolution denier. Well, transitional fossils do exist. A couple of the most notable ones are archaeopteryx and Australopithecus afarensis. Some whales still have leg bones inside their bodies. There are many other examples of vestigial structures throughout the animal kingdom. I'm not going to sit here and type the all mountains of evidence and examples of evolution's validity. Take it from one of your own. Here's a quote from Francis Collins, a devout Christian that played a large role in the human genome project. "It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that." Look, I've had the privilege of thoroughly studying evolution and biology in college and I will tell you it's fact whether you want to believe it or not. You need to find a way to reconcile your religious beliefs with evidence and fact. I've typed enough. If you want more google "God of the gaps" and here's a website for radiometric dating, which is verifiably accurate.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
--
Anonymous Post Author
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Thanks for your reply. There are scientific points both for and against atheism. I can't help but note, the evolution they teach you in college is biased. Maybe you should see it in a different light as well, for that I recommend watching some of Kent Hovind's videos. Either way, believe what you want, peace out man.
--
Jweezee
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Incomplet
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That's the thing, scientific evidence is the opposite of biased. It is coldly factual and evolves when presented with new studies that dispute previously held beliefs. There is no agenda, no ideology, and no motive other than the truth. For those reasons it is the exact opposite of religion. And Kent hovind is a dishonest twat desperately clinging to implausible ideas that were long ago dismissed by the logical scientific community. Like I said, you need to reconcile your faith with facts. If you wanna say God set the evolutionary process in motion, then great. If you want say the bible is to be taken metaphorically, have at it. But denying what has been scientifically proven makes you look like a complete moron prime for an institution to anyone with the slightest scientific knowledge.
--
Anonymous Post Author
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
You speak of scientists like holy men. Remember that our species is one of greed and thirst for power. Money can control people, scientists as much as say, pastors. I don't believe in the infallability of scientific records and experiments, but not saying that's a major issue either. Just remember to take anything with a grain of salt.
And don't forget that scientists are still disputing among themselves.
I consider myself fairly advanced in my scientific knowledge, and when I hear something said I don't stick my fingers in my ears and chant. If I do so, please enlighten me.
--
Jweezee
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You don't stick your fingers in your ears and ignore scientific evidence? Then please tell me why you choose to deny the evidence of evolution? Tell me why the fossil record, vestigial structures, DNA evidence, ring species, similar embryology, observed germ evolution, geographic marsupial location, and any credible scientist is ignored. Hell, even the Vatican acknowledges evolution. Well, if you're having trouble answering that question I can answer it for you. It's because the facts collide with your faith and you desperately don't want to believe it's true. Well, I'm sorry but your emotions don't trump facts. I'm really not trying to be a dick here but fuck! I'll give you an opportunity to refute my examples. Give me one, just one, example of credible scientific evidence, that means no creationist website propaganda, that contradicts evolution.
Sorry. Could you please expand on the scientific points against atheism? Why do you think the evolution taught at college is biased?
Kent Hovind is a conspiracy theorist. That's a pretty good indicator that he makes claims but lacks evidence to support them. Even fellow creationists criticise him.
In particular AiG (Answers in Genesis) criticized Hovind for "persistently us[ing] discredited or false arguments" and said Hovind's claims are "self-refuting".
Creationist astronomer Hugh Ross, of Reasons To Believe, debated Hovind on the age of the Earth during the John Ankerberg Show, televised nationally on the Inspiration Network in September through October 2000. Ross said Hovind was "misrepresenting the field" of different sciences, and Ross told Hovind: "Astronomers view the credibility of the 'Young Earth' as being much weaker than that for a flat Earth."
If a creationist astronomer is criticising the whole "Young Earth" concept as weaker than the "flat Earth" myth, you know this man isn't credible.
--
Anonymous Post Author
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
I noted my main ones already, but to list all the little ones I would need to get my text books out and slave at my desk for a week or two to get the majority.
And in my school, we are taught evolution not as a hypothesis, but rather a fact. There's a little anecdote for you.
As to Hovind, that's the first time I hear such things about the guy, given time, I'll look into them. But what do you think is wrong about conspiracy theorists? And did you know of Hovind before I mentioned him, or did you google him?
P.S. I only just realised the cleverness of your username...I feel dumb.