¨Oh, and by the way your screenname says it all for the creation side: for something to be compiled, it has to already exist in raw form for some time before it can be compiled. You should have thought that one through, as well!¨

 

...so you do NOT see the problem in calling a translation (made in the 15th century) about something which was selectively compiled by a bunsh of roman priests, centuries after the death of the man who the new testament revolves around, and calling it the ¨unerrent word of the living god¨?

 

please refraim from thinking you have some sort of edge when you don even get the point at all.

 

 

apart from the fact that you probably spoke to a specific group of atheist, you do not seem to understand what these are fighting against.

you see, for beleivers, there IS a thign called god, this concept that doesn actually exist in reality, but that does in their minds, is of such an importance to the believer that he is willing to base his actions on the belief in this imaginary concept..THAT is what we are fightign against when we fight agaisnt god.

because saying ¨because god said so"is NOT a rationally defendable motivation for a choice. is doesn´t have any rational basis to make as the being doesn exits. thus makign the choice isn making a rational choice, and when you look at the important choiches people make with their beleif in mind. you shouldn be whining we call you on your BS.

 

¨This is because they are constantly wrestling with the fact that everything around them screams at them,"GOD EXISTS!"

NO, itś the PEOPLE around you who scream that, and itś the PEOPLE who cannot back up their claims, yet they make all sorts of important decisions apon the assumption that sucha  beign exists, decisions that affect us atheist too.

 

 

 

 

¨when was the last time you looked at what the schools are teaching, do they teach creation or evolution and close out any other side with censorship.¨

 

no, because ToE is actual science and creationism and ID are religion.

 

 

¨what happens everyday in schools across the nation as they find 'new' and contradicting finds almost every month that is published in the main journals that claim that they had it wrong...again¨

 

do you even read the journals? i didn´t think so.

 

¨It just keeps on changing while the same old debunked crap is taught mindlessly in the schools everyday¨

 

apart form heckles embryo´s *(which still represent the similarities, about somewhat out of proportain, newer books have actual pictures instead of the sketches and they STILL show the similarities heckle exaggerated) you have really nothing to critisize (most) science classes. at least thatś the way it is here in NL, i have no idea about the actual level of education in the US.

 

¨!  You would rather follow a theory that keeps on being disproven by it's own constituents everyday, into hell... literally,¨

 

great to have your religious motivation and your scientific illitaracy shine through.

iĺl aks you this question.

¨by what mechanism does evolution work?¨

lets see what you think ToE states first.

 

¨than to admit that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.¨

 

The thing is we actually DO know what we are talkign about, and we have the education and the 150 years worth of research to back it up

 

¨ Now that would be funny if it didn't involve your souls.¨

 

demonstrate me the existence of such a thing first, BEFORE you make such a silly threat.

 

Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?" Yawn.

 

Considering that creationists are fixated on the whole "we didn't come from them thar monkies, cuz the bible dun told me so" obsession, it's quite amusing that your debate tactics amount to nothing more than "monkey see, monkey do."

 

 

Complete and utter bullshit. Provide ONE single example of a religious organization was prevented from teaching creationism to their followers (waiting...).

 

But we both know that, when fundamentalist Christians claim to be the vicitims of censorship, they really mean that they're upset because their particular dogma isn't getting ENOUGH special treatment.

 

 

That paragraph makes it sound like you are unware that there's a difference between high school level study of a subject, and graduate/post-grad level original research. Not really helping your credibility, such as it is.

 

Aside from that, the best objection I've read to that line of lazy reasoning:

 

"When science is taught as only factual observation [...], then disagreements among scientists and changing scientific views are seen as weaknesses and failings of scientific knowledge. However, the exact opposite is the case. It is the dynamic, changing, self-correcting nature of science that is its very strength."

- Keith B. Miller of the Department of Geology at Kansas State University, member of the Affiliation of Christian Geologists

 

 

Ah yes, another standard creationist debate tactic: when you run out of rational arguments, resort to bible-thumping.

 

But don't worry, I can think of worse fates than hell - for example, spending an eternity with fundamentalist Christians. Now THAT would be unbearable.

 

It's also interesting to note that you're claiming that evolution has been disproven - yet you've failed to provide any citations or references to substantiate that claim. If you want anyone to take you seriously, backing up your claims is a pretty basic pre-requisite.

 

 

Yes, I'm sure 325 has been absolutely crushed and your irrelevant

semantic nitpicking will force him to leave in disgrace and quit the internet forever.

 

 

First of all, that's nothing but a vague, unsubstantiated personal anecdote. And, as such, it's of no value in any sort of rational debate - sorry to break it to you, but "anecdote" is not the singular form of "data."

 

Second of all, I would bet good money that NONE of the supposed atheists you talked to actually described themselves as a "fighter against God." In all likelihood, that's nothing more than YOUR lazy, after-the-fact mischaracterization of their position.

 

 

As amusing as it is to see a Christian comparing God to a fictional comic book character, don't you think maybe there's a little difference? Last time I checked, there's no "Church of Superman," no large and vocal groups of people arguing against established scientific theories on the grounds that they "go against the infallible word of our lord Superman," or claiming that we should live our lives in strict adherence to the moral code that Superman set down for us, etc etc etc.

 

 

If this is the part where you whip out the standard "irreducible complexity" arguments, I'm sorry to have to tell you that they were soundly debunked some time ago.

 

 

False dichotomy. Your argument is just a bit of dishonest spin that amounts to nothing more than "we must be right because people argue against us." You could use that exact same reasoning to argue that (for example) NAMBLA must be right, because people oppose them.

 

Which raises the counter-question: are you genuinely that ignorant, or are you just being dishonest? And since I'm not an absolutist, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that the answer is "a bit of both."

 

"It seems that you are describing the fundementalist evolutionist 'underhanded tactics', I mean, when was the last time you looked at what the schools are teaching, do they teach creation or evolution and close out any other side with censorship..."
- Maybe becuase creationism is pseudoscience, haven't passed peer-review or even the scientific method! I mean the day we implement creationism in schools, the same day we get to put in homepathy, ghosts, paranormal entities etc.
The sole reason for the whole "teach both sides"-argument is to avoid having creationism tested and implement it straight into the schools. ToE had to take the long hard way and succeded. Creationism have never and will not. Even a court of law ruled it religious! The same court of law that would prosecute a pedophile for example.

"...talking about mindlessly repeating all the same debunked crap, what happens everyday in schools across the nation as they find 'new' and contradicting finds almost every month that is published in the main journals that claim that they had it wrong...again!"
- You know i honestly look forward to any of these alleged "contradictiong finds almost every month that is published in the main journals" getting shown to me cuz since i came to this forum, no one has ever shown me a scientific article that would support creationism.
I dare you! SHOW ME THE ARTICLES!

"It just keeps on changing while the same old debunked crap is taught mindlessly in the schools everyday.... it isn't creationism to be sure! "
- Yeah we should totally throw out all science that has been changed over the course of history and everything that is older than 150 years... :O
That means we cannot teach creationism anyway since it hasn't changed in 2000 years...

"You would rather follow a theory that keeps on being disproven by it's own constituents everyday, into hell..."
- Yet you think we are that stupid so we will mindlessly believe you without you even mentioning any kind of evidence at all let alone linking to a credible source. Dude wanna pull more out ur ass?

"Now that would be funny if it didn't involve your souls. "
- Oh yes the souls! One of many, many things creationists believe in that has no validity to it at all.

"Oh, and by the way your screenname says it all for the creation side: for something to be compiled, it has to already exist in raw form for some time before it can be compiled. You should have thought that one through, as well!"
- Its so obvious that you have to resort to that kind of argument since you haven't got anything else.

"I have talked to many atheists, and everyone of them so far have been strong fighters 'against God', which contratdicts their very foundation, because you don't fight against something that you truly don't believe exists."
- Christians don't understand atheists. It's completely irrational and illogical for an atheist to fight god. They may fight the very irrational and stupid idea that god exists.

 

Thanks! I'd skimmed the wikipedia page on the evolution of emotion, but it looks like that document goes into a lot more detail.