If the universe requires a creator then the creator should require a creator = religion is made-up

Are you saying that Metaphysics has no place ?....(and here this whole time....)

Alotta blah blah blah and no real answers from the Bill Nye side....just alotta guessing. 

TY Blaise....as I've said before....I will love you forever....chow4now....L

The_Ghostess_Lola, I can see you have a fan Gentleman 77, he is a bit obscene and obscessive with you; it proves the missing link, evolution is solve.

You have no evidence. Smart people would understand this, sorry you can't no matter how hard you try! LMAO!

So far, the "reasonable people"  when questioned about the fossil record, the best example of it being true from their few point was "lucy". I wasn't even going to bring up the Cambrian Explosion ( Thanks Yuree). When questioned about mutations the best & only example given was "glow in the dark mice". If that's not absurd, think about it this way  if mutations are suppose to be helpful to the survival  of the animal, survival of the fittest in a natural enviroment remember, first think of an instance that by "NATURAL PROCESSES" a field mice would have its genetic code radically altered by jellyfish DNA. Then think about a situation that this would HELP the mice survive. If you are truly interested in "Measuring " God study Jesus Christ, John 1:14. thank you.

Then that would mean subtheistism(believe in science and religion) is the best belief.

Subtheistism tolerates both science and religion.You can believe anything you want as a subtheist.Subtheistism has no disadvantages because there are no heresies and you can modify certain religions or scientific facts to suit you better.Also all of us follow it in one form or another.

So stop arguing because we all share the same basic belief.

Stephenson2 wrote:

Panzerkampfwagen_V wrote:

Subtheistism tolerates both science and religion.You can believe anything you want as a subtheist.Subtheistism has no disadvantages because there are no heresies and you can modify certain religions or scientific facts to suit you better.Also all of us follow it in one form or another.

How long did it take to come up with that word.

"Religion" has no "Facts" just dreams make believe in any case to Modify any falsehood (Religion) is to harm other people .

Science trys to enlighten humans Religion hurts.

Atheistism is a form of subtheistism.Also modifying your beliefs is not necessary.I also forgot to mention that subtheistism has multiple religious heads in case you don't like one.(There is no atheist equivalent to the religious head of a religion.)

How is modifying religion bad for the world?Give me a strong example.

Still going strong??

I give it another month

this shit belong on 4chan

"You can be informed or you can be deceived" is a great line. I'm curious, did you even attempt to answer any of the ten questions posted?  If you didn't you are the definition of ignorant.  Even though they sound clever enough what if the questions were ill-conceived?  Who would be lying? 

For example:

During an experiment in Cambridge over the seven years 2001–2007 Majerus noted the natural resting positions of peppered moths, and of the 135 moths examined over half were on tree branches, mostly on the lower half of the branch, 37% were on tree trunks, mostly on the north side, and only 12.6% were resting on or under twigs.^[9][10] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth

The thing is, even if your biology teacher couldn't answer all ten certainly your priest couldn't unless his undergrad was in the sciences.  To suggest creation is the answer to these questions is to promote a culture of ignorance.

No good biology teacher would have any difficulty with these objections as they are all based on misinterpretations or deliberate distortions. I'm not a biology teacher but these are my answers:

1) Miller-Urey: no-one is claiming this and vast amounts of work have been done since then on trying to work out what the conditions of the early earth were like. We're closer to an answer but there are still many questions. In any case, this question relates to bio-genesis and requires an entirely different Theory than Evolution through Natural Selection and entirely different scientific skills.

2) The "Cambrian Explosion" is discussed frequently in the textbooks and the fossils relating to it are a source of constant study and discovery. It was one of the reasons that the idea of punctated equilibrium was proposed.

3) Homology may suggest common ancestry but it is certainly not seen as cast iron proof of the same as many animals are homologous but are clearly not closely related. A shark and a trout look more alike than either do to a human but trout are more closely related to humans than they are to sharks. This surprising fact comes from genetics.

4) The drawings to which you refer are more than a century old. Biologists do not use drawings to prove anything but actually look at the embryos and these do show great simularities. More recent drawings do not pretend to offer proof of anything but are simply illustrative.

5) Very old textbooks and newspaper headlines might make such a claim but no-one is claiming "missing-link" status for archaeopteryx not least because the whole idea of missing links is a misconception. Evolution takes place in populations and is not driven by single mutations so one could never find a missing link because there are none; simply gradual or, sometimes, quite rapid change within a given population. Read some actual research and you'll find lots of evidence for this.  Archaeoptrix is probably related to but is not a direct ancestor of modern birds as has been acknowledged for decades.

6) Peppered moths: what is claimed here is simply not the case and a very small amount of fieldwork would disprove this claim.

7) Darwins Finches: again this is not the case. In any event, no-one is claiming that evolution is constant or always heads in the same direction. Natural selection is driven by the environmant in which an organsim lives. The peppered moths example above illustrates this. Moths with darker hues were positively selected due to the darkening of tree trunks as a result of industrial pollution. There is now less industrial pollution, at least in terms of smoke and dust, and the moths are now moving in the other direction. This is exactly what would be predicted by evolution through natural selection.

8) Fruit fly wings: such experiments are carried out not to prove that mutation occurs, and even most creationists would admit to micro-evolution which implies mutations, but to undestand the process better. That mutations occur is proven, its the details of the genetic mechanism that needs to be understood better. Fruit flys in a laboratory would not evolve in the usual way because they are not in a natural environment.

9) Human Origins: Artists drawings are not used to justify anything but are a simple way to show the non-specialist where we are are the moment. If you want to justify any claim about human origins you need to look at the actual fossils and the genetic record. It is certain that humans evolved but there is still lots of room for debate on the details as new findings and interpretations of those findings continue to stir the pot.

10) Darwin's Theory of Evolution: Darwin came up with a good hypothesis based on years of fieldwork and about a quarter century of study. It took about 50 years before his central idea was generally accepted at which point much of what he suggested was refined or found to be wrong. He had few fossils to go on and he knew nothing of genetics so, as everyone acknowledges, he made quite a few errors. All scientists do! No-one advocates "Darwin's Theory" as research and findings over the last 150 years means we've moved on from there, but all hands-on research is consistent with evolution through natural selection in one form or another. Proponents of Creation and ID Theorists often claim their views are rejected due to bias but they come up with no papers supporting their positions which show original research with a clear account of methodology and the data on which any of their findings rely. If they think they can't get published in peer-reviewed journals due to bias then, if such papers exist, and I haven't seen any, why not publish them in their own journals or on the net? Their are biases in science as scientists are human too, but the publication of a good scientific paper, especially if it successfully challenges an accepted position, simply cannot be brushed under the carpet. That no such papers purporting to challenge the basis of evolution through natural selection seem to have been published is possibly indicative that no such papers exist!

And you expect us to just believe you?

And it's Ziggy, not Zigy.

So, until someone proves that evolution is linked to Christianity, you won't believe in evolution? Is that correct?

(By the way, plural and singular are both "fish". Sorry, I'm a grammar freak...) 

Well man is a co-creator. He makes stuff, a lot actually with each invention created for a specific purpose. With so many stuff hanging in the universe up there you think they weren't made for a purpose? Who made them? 

Good luck...

I still haven't got an answer. Why does the atheist even care what others think ? I mean, I don't care if you don't believe in a god 'cuz it means nothing to me.

I see the atheist as being a pawn down here in a K+R+flank P vs. K+R. IOW's, I don't see any statues of Darwin (in homage) anywhere. Why not ?....'cuz his fun little book doesn't address the real questions. Like - How did life first form ?....How did matter come about ?....Why doesn't time have a beginning ?....What's beyond the Particle Horizon - if there is one ?....and stuff like that.

This chess game seems like it's been hard fought. But the atheist side hasn't come up w/ any new novelties. It's just the same old moves....with no real answers. IOW's, the flank pawn side is about to show the atheist the Lucena Position........

And in the end ?....since you can't answer any of my hard questions ?....and you're not a good enuf salesperson to blind me with science ?

....then Mr Dolby ?....pleez take it from here ! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEbsKs6IiUc