chessterd5 wrote:

drpsholder wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Being prepared about something thats not going to happen.......is the essence of brainwashing.

 

They have convinced you that it will happen. You have been brainwashed. Sad huh?

 

dp, you are still waiting for a chicken to turn into a fish... NATURALLY.

 

 

Why cant you prove me wrong? Lol

yureesystem wrote:

The problem with evolutionist they are like baby birds, their stands is very shakey, they wobble when they walk and their eyes are shut tight; so have to make it simple for them and not too complicated or them, a simple message is suffice. Their tiny brain is already full and you have to empty the garbage and give life saving massage, that God created the world and a ray of light will open their eyes and the truth will enlighten them.  There is always hope for evolutionist bird, you have to have patience and keep it simple. 

Still mad at being exposed for not having any evidence, huh??? Lol

Hill61 wrote:

God is sovereign, whether you believe it or not. "Be not deceived,  God is not mocked, whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap".

Sorry there is no evidence for god. But you cant accept it because you will get punished by your very own personal gawd.

@ dipstickholder

You atheists are so deaf, dumb, and blind.........can you not see the evidence that is all around you, can something create itself?  Nature is part of super-natural, you dimwits. That is part of God......but God is above it all, for he created it....and us.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? 

drpsholder  wrote: 

Hill61 wrote:

God is sovereign, whether you believe it or not. "Be not deceived,  God is not mocked, whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap".

Sorry there is no evidence for god. But you cant accept it because you will get punished by your very own personal gawd.  

 

 

 

Lol pleassse, it is like saying there is no science; of course there is a God and He created the universe and everything to existence by speaking it. God has supernatural forces and not hard to understand, even scientists believe this, maybe a fairtytale like evolution and your god darwin that you blindly believed and not questioned is easier for you to believed, it is not science base. There is more truth in Aesop fables than evolution. ouch! 

Hill61 wrote: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?   

 

 

That is too hard of question to ask mere simpleton drpsholder, it will confuse him; he claim to understand science but he doesn't understand Pascal who believe in God.  The chicken was created first because God spoke it to existence. Very simple! 

I didn't bother to read all the comments.

Were there any comments that were supposed to be sent to me?

I do believe the Bible, & I have read it, multiple times. cover to cover. And while I agree with you most christians really do not know what their bible teaches in general there are some that do. The only reason I am responding to this post is because you have levied an accusation as a whole against all christians wich is not true. Furthermore, in your long post where you supposedly listed all the wrong things God supposedly tells us to do. You made two fundamental errors in misrepresentation of facts to ecsentiate the misinformation you wanted to protray to fool people. Those basic deceptions are: 1) All of your Bible verses used came from the old testament except for one. Wich does not take into account the new testament through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. 2) You have chosen different & various translation & versions to further your cause of disinformation. The motive behind this is to fool other people into disbelieving something the same as you do, due to your emotional confrontation with God, evidenced by your next LONG post explaining it in detail. These are just the main points or avenues of deception you have used to further your own opion. I will not even go into the misconstrued information formed in each subsection of your post. thank you.

I just like to make ppl like S2 hafta sit & think & realize they don't hold any existential answers & never will in their lifetime........

So....if you wanna put down the believers, as the OP and the thread title has done, then prepare for an onslaught that will keep you awake at nite....so nana nana boo boo........

Man of God and science have benefit mankind; evolution has not benefit mankind at all but made our society more violent and unsafe, because without a God there is no morals ( right and wrong).  

True science benefit everyone!

Harvey’s Main Conclusions about Blood Circulation

Harvey showed for the first time that the arteries and veins circulate blood through the whole body. He showed that the heart’s beat produces a constant circulation of blood through the whole body. He refuted many of the then standard beliefs of how the heart and blood system worked, establishing that:

• blood in the arteries and the veins is all of the same origin, not manufactured in different parts of the body
• the blood sent through the arteries to the tissues is not consumed there
• the circulation mechanism is designed for movement of liquid, not air. The blood on the right side, although carrying air, is still blood
• the heart is the source of blood movement, not the liver
• the heart contracts at the same time as a pulse is felt
• the ventricles squeeze blood into the aorta and pulmonary artery
• the pulse is not produced by the arteries pulling blood in, but by blood being pushed by the heart into the arteries, enlarging them
• there are no vessels in the heart’s septum: all of the blood in the right ventricle goes to the lungs and then through the pulmonary veins to the left ventricle

        • Similarly, all of the blood in the left ventricle is sent into the arteries, round by the smaller veins into the venae cavae, and then to the right ventricle again. In this way, the circulation is complete. The blood has come back to where it began its circuit of the body

• there is no to-and-fro movement of blood in the veins, but a constant flow of blood to the heart.  

William Harvey

(#1196)....due to your emotional confrontation with God....

You can say that twice....so perfectly said !

You can be rest-assured that nearly all the atheists on this thread are struggling w/ a confrontation with god....and it's confuzing them. All you hafta do is admit that thinking is a function of your emotional state. 'Cuz you always "feel" first....then you think. Everything you do....including acts of basic survival. All your personal wants and needs are emotional first....then thought out. Whether you like it or not, you're a slave to your emotions.

....and the biggest ones are to love and be loved. Sorry atheists, you can run but you can't hide.

@ Lola..........they really don't want a confrontation with God, now do they?

Yes, they avoid it at all costs, but in the end, they will have to stand in front of him, as we all will. Then, and only then......will they be convinced that there is a God.

@ flowdown

Did you know that God knows how many stars there are and calls them all by name? 

Can man do that? I don't think so.............

so Einstein, which came first, the chicken or the egg? lol

Single cell........ it is an embryo........how can an embryo produce itself?

No something cannot create itself and this is not a position that atheists maintain. Its a strawman. You assume that we believe things can create themselves(we don't) and then because you know they don't......but thing we do..........we must be deaf, dumb, and blind.

But all you are doing is refuting something that we don't believe.

Things don't create themselves. But things do things naturally. When vinegar and baking soda mix, they create bubbles and fizz. Its not God creating those bubbles, its the chemical reaction that creates them. And likewise the bubbles didn't create themselves.

The problem with your supernatural argument is that we have no evidence of anything that is supernatural...........because if we did, we could test it, measure it, etc. to see if it has created the things that we already claimed it did.  Without any evidence of anything supernatural, we cannot test it, nor should you believe it created anything.

Its akin to me believing in unicorns and saying that "unicorns are above space and time".  Anytime you ask "Who created the unicorn", I will just say, "the unicorn needs no creator, he is eternal and has always existed."

Notice that I didn't offer any evidence of this unicorn in the first place, so there is no way to know if this unicorn created anything at all, nor whether he really exists. Kind of interesting when unicorn is substituted for Gawd, huh?

The egg, since dinosaurs existed before chickens and they laid eggs.  Now, if you are asking, "which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg", then I would have to say the chicken, since a chicken egg can't come from anything else, therefore the chicken must have come first.

The egg, since dinosaurs existed before chickens and they laid eggs.  

Now, if you are asking, "which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg", then I would have to say the chicken, since a chicken egg can't come from anything else, therefore the chicken must have come first.

I would love to believe you, but you didn't show where Alex was wrong or how he was being ridiculous.

Is that because you can't and had to resort to only being able to say he was being ridiculous?

@ flowdown---------> so  are you saying that the egg is complicated, how can something so complicated create itself?

@ dipster------------>Why do you all always bring up unicorns, that is like you are defeating your own purpose, as we all know that they don't exist, lol.

DNA is not the blueprint for life but is rather similar to a parts list. Developmental biologists know there is much more than DNA which subsequently smashes the Darwinian evolutionary species theory before it can be intelligently uttered for in reality evolution isn't an intelligent postulate which merits ratiocination-wrought intelligent discussion. The DNA does not dictate the form of the animal. For example, one could provide ten people with the exact same housing supplies without instructions as to go about building a house, and no two houses would be built the same. With these same supplies one can build all kinds of structures. The DNA this provides the parts list, however the cell determines the floor plan. A purposeful sequence is required to build a home genitive to other like homes or speciesism. We've known all along that mutations are either harmful or neutral. Beneficial mutations which are reasonably the only kind evolution could use anyway are biochemical in nature. A mutation can lead to antibiotic resistance, for example. The bacteria that still survive do not change the organism and make minor changes [within] the species but cannot create a new species. This information has long been known and thus never controversial. The evidence for mutation clearly already evidences this. For example, I can take a Fruit-fly embryo and the DNA can be mutated in every way as it has been done, and nonetheless there are only three possible outcomes. Period. A normal Fruit-fly, a defective Fruit-fly, or a dead Fruit-fly. That's it, as it is impossible to even change the species, much less get a Horsefly or a horse or something like that. So, we've certainly found a lot of evidence but for what? Darwin's theory is that all living things are descendant from one common ancestor, modified by unguided natural processes such as natural selection and variation. But Darwin didn't write a book about how existing species change over time. That's totally irrelevant. People have known that for centuries. So minor changes within a species is not the issue here. The point is the origin of new species by this same ludicrously Darwinian process. Yet no one has ever observed the origin of a new species through variation and selection and they have tried again and again and again. But that key element in Darwin's theory, the origin of a new species, the title of his book, has never been solved. Darwin stated he was a theist, that he believed in God. Read below: Here’s the excerpt from p.92-93 of Charles Darwin’s autobiography: "Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist." -Charles Darwin Those who live in tune with nature believe. Atheism started as an urban phenomenon in the distorted minds of those who had to live behind walls, social as well as structural. And what about listening to the great silence? From where came the beauty of snowflakes, flowers, ferns, lichens, each a different piece of exquisite embroidery? From where came the wonderful arrangement of elementary particles in the atom? How is it that the electron revolves in its orbit hundreds of millions of times every hundred-thousandth of a second, so that what is in constant motion should give us solid objects to handle? Did you ever hear about a machine with eighty trillion electrical cells? One of its parts, weighing only fifty ounces, is a mechanism consisting of ten billion cells, which generate, receive, record, and transmit energy. This wonderful machine is your body. How grateful you would be if somebody presented you with a car. But you were given a much finer machine. By whom? How is it that chemical changes in the neurons of the brain become, with a change of sentiments, another thought? How is it that a man exhaling the poison carbon dioxide transforms it into a word of love, or even a word carrying the message of eternal life? How is it that when you wish to do an evil thing, it is as if an unseen hand would restrain you? Whose hand is this? Even if the voice of conscience is not powerful enough to make you abandon a wicked intention, you hear it later in the form of regret and remorse. Who are you to ask reality’s identity? What if this reality should answer, “Since in your arrogance you set yourself up as an authority, please indicate first who you are?” Could you indeed answer one of the thousands of questions that reality asks you? The development of science has not so much increased the knowledge of facts as it has increased the number of questions to which we must find the answers. You question reality about its last mysteries, about its sense, about its design, about the existence of a Creator. To whom should reality answer, and in what language? Primitive tribes, to which the first missionaries went, had no words for such concepts as “love,” “faith,” “forgiveness,” “spirit,” “holy,” “train.” The missionaries were restricted in their ability to communicate their message or to share the realities of their own country. Have you a common language with the highest reality? And again, to whom should this reality speak? You acknowledge only reason. But according to your materialistic doctrine, reason is the manner in which the human brain works. The elephant’s brain is otherwise constituted. Its work is called instinct. To yours, you have given a nicer name. And yet both brains, you insist, are accidents of evolution, the random agglomeration of atoms over eons of time, without the impinging of a designer. You consider atheism to be the truth. But before applying the notion “truth” to atheism, you have to define what you mean by “truth.” Pilate asked, “What is truth?” Whoever does not know the answer to that question has no basis on which to assert that anything is true. Skeptics have said that “truth is a suspicion that has endured” or “a hallucination agreed upon by a majority.” But what they mock as hallucination might be error pointed in the right direction. Alchemy and astrology were just such fruitful errors, precursors of chemistry and astronomy. What is your definition of truth? A Marxist would say that truth is conditioned by social class. The economic conditions in which a man lives determine his convictions. In a letter to Cluss dated December 7, 1852, Marx describes his own economic condition. He says that he is as good as imprisoned because he lacks trousers and shoes and that his family risks being plunged into deep poverty. We are moved to feel sorry for him. But then Marxism is the mentality of men without trousers and shoes. And we'll keep rounding the mountain again and again.... Like religion is something God created. Chess is a thinking game. God speed! ------ Here’s the excerpt from p.92-93 of Charles Darwin’s autobiography: "Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist." -Charles Darwin