Just a question to atheists and darwinist?

[Toro]

Darwin was a christian

wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_Charles_Darwin_a_Christian


Although Darwin originally trained in theology and had studied the work of William Paley, he at some point rejected the Christian faith, if in fact, he ever had it. Some have attributed this to bitterness after the early death of his young daughter Annie, although there were undoubtedly other factors. It has even been suggested that Darwin wrote 'The Origin..' as a specific rebuttal of Paley's work. The idea which has circulated that Darwin 'repented on his death bed' apparently has no basis in fact.

Darwin's wife was a Christian and worried greatly that he would go to hell for rejecting the Christian faith.

 

[rdean]

Darwin was a christian

wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_Charles_Darwin_a_Christian


Although Darwin originally trained in theology and had studied the work of William Paley, he at some point rejected the Christian faith, if in fact, he ever had it. Some have attributed this to bitterness after the early death of his young daughter Annie, although there were undoubtedly other factors. It has even been suggested that Darwin wrote 'The Origin..' as a specific rebuttal of Paley's work. The idea which has circulated that Darwin 'repented on his death bed' apparently has no basis in fact.

Darwin's wife was a Christian and worried greatly that he would go to hell for rejecting the Christian faith.

Turns out, all he did was die. Just like everybody else.

 

[N4mddissent]

The only correct response to this thread.

1. Explain common endogenous retrovirus insertions in the absence of evolution.

2. Consider the difference between establishing a claim and rejection of a claim. Additionally, modern atheists, even Richard Dawkins, could be considered agnostic to some degree. He states very clearly that it is impossible for science to say with 100% certainty that there is no god. It would require perfect knowledge, and usually it's the arrogance of faith that results in claims of perfect knowledge.

3. Atheism is not the same thing as evolution.

4. You are bearing false witness about Darwin, either through intentional misleading, or ignorance. And in any case, it is irrelevant to any point brought up on this thread. von Braun designed rockets for the Nazis, but it doesn't discredit the science behind his engineering. Heisenberg was a member of the Uranium club which was tasked with consideration of building Hitler a nuclear weapon. But his uncertainty principle is sound regardless of his personal associations.

 

[Dr Grump]

it's the humans and who falsify the message of god to invent trinity and other concepts.

In your opinion...

 

[froggy]

wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_Charles_Darwin_a_Christian


Although Darwin originally trained in theology and had studied the work of William Paley, he at some point rejected the Christian faith, if in fact, he ever had it. Some have attributed this to bitterness after the early death of his young daughter Annie, although there were undoubtedly other factors. It has even been suggested that Darwin wrote 'The Origin..' as a specific rebuttal of Paley's work. The idea which has circulated that Darwin 'repented on his death bed' apparently has no basis in fact.

Darwin's wife was a Christian and worried greatly that he would go to hell for rejecting the Christian faith.

Turns out, all he did was die. Just like everybody else.

And if he could speak to you now, he would say change your ways so you don't end up in this horrible place.

 

[Douger]

I have always believed that atheism and darwinism are just another doctrines or religions ...no more.

atheism/darwinism are based upon matrerialism...but their arguments and swear at theists is laughable.

hence I want to ask what is the proof of atheists of their doctrine (God non-existence)?
z'atheists should show a materialist proof of their doctrine since it's always their path of reasoning.

good luck

A quick question on Christiainity before you go to deep into this thread.

Is it true that

1)The God of Judaism is the same God of Christianity?

2) The Jewish God has a compact with Jews that Christians claim was voided

3) This contract was voided when Christ died on the cross?

4)Christ never stated that this voided the original compact between God and man?

5)The arguement for the erasure of such contract is actually convoluted and questionable unless you repeat Christian authority. The same authorities that have a vested interest in the promotion of Christianity?

6)This is not the only questionable theological position Christianity has taken when it concerns the basis and purpose of the religion.

there is only one God, and it's the same God of 3 religions, but it's the humans and who falsify the message of god to invent trinity and other concepts.

Bob Dole is God ?
'Let us make man in our own image...'
This message was officially approved by King James.

 

[Freeman]

this is the doc of the fundamentalist atheist Dawkins, darwin is the prophet of atheist religion:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKJr_CIiz2M]YouTube - Darwin vs Religion 1/5[/ame]

 

[Freeman]

From the fossil record, to the modern science of genetics, all evidence supports the fact that life evolved from the single cell to the present diversity. The majority of Christians find the evidence of evolution convincing, and not in conflict with their religion.

I consider myself an agnostic simply because I personally do not know if a diety exist or not. What you know or don't know, I have no way of knowing. So if you say that you believe, I do not find that to challenge my belief, or lack of it, at all. However, if you say that the fossil record, of which I have seen a great deal, is something other than it is, then you had best have evidence.

completely false!
all living fossils has defied evolution hypothsis and even refute it
"The evolution in action" of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species-
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Treatise of Zoology
-Bats have remained
unchanged for 50 million years

-a bony of 210 millions years unchanged

-A 410-million-year-old Cœlacanth fossil

Cœlacanth was baptised as "missing link" before fishing tens of it in 40s

-A 450-million-year-old horseshoe crab is no different to specimens alive today.

-Australian lungfish from the Devonian period (408-360 million years ago) unchanged!

-A 155-Million-Year-Old Drogonfly

-lizard unchanged since 40 million years

-a skate presents exactly the same characteristics of today and dated from 245 million years.

so where's this f*king evolution "fact" ??

You know that information is out there and available. If you want to play "gotcha" games on an Internet board, then fine, but at least admit that you don't really want to learn.

learn??
from the thousands of living fossils discovered , give me 5 transitional forms.

half fish, half lizard-half hawk, half dinosaurs ...

 

[pinqy]

I don't believe on father christmas; I can prove it
I don't believe on Dracula, I can prove it.

atheism is a doctrine, and followers should prove it "scientifically"!, otherwise they must stay agnostics at least.

I'm sure you can prove you don't believe in Father Christmas or Dracula. But please prove that they don't exist. Oh, please prove that Fairies don't exist either. And I doubt you've even heard of, let alone believe in, rusalki or domovie, or vodonie, so go ahead and prove they don't exist either (your premise does seem to be you must have proof to not believe in something).

Oh, and plese cite the complete doctrine for unbelief in all those as well.

Note that asserting a conflicting belief does NOT constitute either proof of non-existence nor a doctrine of non-belief. For example: "The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the creator of the Universe, therefore the Abrahamic God cannot exist since it is claimed that He is the creator." is neither proof of the non-existance of God, nor a doctrine.

Oh, last one: There is a blue London Police box from the 1960's on the far side of the moon. Either believe me, or prove that I'm wrong and present your doctrine.

 

[Douger]

completely false!
all living fossils has defied evolution hypothsis and even refute it
"The evolution in action" of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species-
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Treatise of Zoology
-Bats have remained
unchanged for 50 million years

-a bony of 210 millions years unchanged

-A 410-million-year-old Cœlacanth fossil

Cœlacanth was baptised as "missing link" before fishing tens of it in 40s

-A 450-million-year-old horseshoe crab is no different to specimens alive today.

-Australian lungfish from the Devonian period (408-360 million years ago) unchanged!

-A 155-Million-Year-Old Drogonfly

-lizard unchanged since 40 million years

-a skate presents exactly the same characteristics of today and dated from 245 million years.

so where's this f*king evolution "fact" ??

You know that information is out there and available. If you want to play "gotcha" games on an Internet board, then fine, but at least admit that you don't really want to learn.

learn??
from the thousands of living fossils discovered , give me 5 transitional forms.

half fish, half lizard-half hawk, half dinosaurs ...

it's in your photo.
Half Breed

 

[Freeman]

it's in your photo.
Half Breed

there is no single transitional form!
half-breaded , yeah

 

[rdean]

completely false!
all living fossils has defied evolution hypothsis and even refute it
"The evolution in action" of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species-
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Treatise of Zoology
-Bats have remained
unchanged for 50 million years

-a bony of 210 millions years unchanged

-A 410-million-year-old Cœlacanth fossil

Cœlacanth was baptised as "missing link" before fishing tens of it in 40s

-A 450-million-year-old horseshoe crab is no different to specimens alive today.

-Australian lungfish from the Devonian period (408-360 million years ago) unchanged!

-A 155-Million-Year-Old Drogonfly

-lizard unchanged since 40 million years

-a skate presents exactly the same characteristics of today and dated from 245 million years.

so where's this f*king evolution "fact" ??

You know that information is out there and available. If you want to play "gotcha" games on an Internet board, then fine, but at least admit that you don't really want to learn.

learn??
from the thousands of living fossils discovered , give me 5 transitional forms.

half fish, half lizard-half hawk, half dinosaurs ...

It doesn't work that way. If you actually "studied", perhaps in a college or university, you would know that.

Half fish? If that weren't so funny, it would be pathetic.

 

[Freeman]

i studied in university, and I know that darwinism is just hoax hypothesis

those poor evolutionnists are unable to find any transitional missing link

The problem is that the species to species transitional forms in the fossil record aren’t “few,” “hit or miss,” or “very spotty.” They don’t exist. There aren’t any, except in the imaginations of those who represent this pseudoscience called “Evolution.” Here is another sincere believer providing me with “evidence”: “The fact remains that at least evolution HAS physical evidence (and reams of it) to debate over . . . Whether you’re willing to accept the evidence we’re able to produce in copious amounts is irrelevant in light of the fact that it does exists here and now and we can all see and argue over it. And there’s not just one piece of evidence… there’s millions of years worth buried under our feet. ‘Cambrian Explosion’ period in prehistory that was found in British Columbia in the early 1900’s has surely got to be enough to convince anyone (Google it if you’re curious). Read that book Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould that I mentioned in another post for all the evidence you could ever want . . . then you can visit any number of natural history museums to see it with your own eyes. What religious apologist could ever offer that kind of varied and immediate evidence? Happy hunting!”

 

[Gadawg73]

i studied in university, and I know that darwinism is just hoax hypothesis

those poor evolutionnists are unable to find any transitional missing link

The problem is that the species to species transitional forms in the fossil record aren’t “few,” “hit or miss,” or “very spotty.” They don’t exist. There aren’t any, except in the imaginations of those who represent this pseudoscience called “Evolution.” Here is another sincere believer providing me with “evidence”: “The fact remains that at least evolution HAS physical evidence (and reams of it) to debate over . . . Whether you’re willing to accept the evidence we’re able to produce in copious amounts is irrelevant in light of the fact that it does exists here and now and we can all see and argue over it. And there’s not just one piece of evidence… there’s millions of years worth buried under our feet. ‘Cambrian Explosion’ period in prehistory that was found in British Columbia in the early 1900’s has surely got to be enough to convince anyone (Google it if you’re curious). Read that book Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould that I mentioned in another post for all the evidence you could ever want . . . then you can visit any number of natural history museums to see it with your own eyes. What religious apologist could ever offer that kind of varied and immediate evidence? Happy hunting!”

Why do 99% of all colleges and universities worldwide teach evolution as fact?
Some kind of atheist Darwanism consipracy?
Or could it be that it is proven fact?
Have you been to the Creation museum in Ky?
Do you believe man walked with dinosaurs 6000 years ago?
That is what your team says is fact friend.
How come a Republican Bush appointed Federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled iin the Dover case creationism and ID was a fraud and validated the teaching of evolution in high school?
Are you one of the 600K that bus into that creation museum in Ky and teach your kids that man walked with dinosaurs 6000 years ago?

My religous faith is so strong evolution does not conflict with it. Accordingly, no trips to the creation museum. The freak show comes once a year with the fair here.

 

[Douger]

For those of us believers.
A birds feather is nothing more than a modified scale.
Check this out
First scientifically confirmed poisonous bird. [VIDEO]

 

[Douger]

For those of us believers.
A birds feather is nothing more than a modified scale.
Check this out
First scientifically confirmed poisonous bird. [VIDEO]

 

[amrchaos]

this is the doc of the fundamentalist atheist Dawkins, darwin is the prophet of atheist religion:
YouTube - Darwin vs Religion 1/5

Darwin is a prophet?
And for who did Darwin spread his message for? hmm? The no-god?


Whoa, hold your horses!! Atheism has nothing new to profess.

In fact, to come to atheism, you need a special attitude!

You must have "boldness"!! Daring!! A "I can't give a damn because I don't believe in damnation" mentality. You have to realize Atheism. Any prophecy or He say she say is considered total BS. In other words, any reasoning needed you probably have to research as much material as possible, including religious material, and draw your own assessment

In fact, if some one tells you other wise, you have to think "Is she/he trying to push their BS on me?"

No prophets
No guiding "Holy Book"
and no God

That is Atheism
A big giant "NO!"
(Don't confuse them with Republicans!!)​

 

[amrchaos]

Aah! but you have faith in yourself to believe there is know God. Thus your lying to yourself as well as others. You do need faith.

Boy, you really know how to twist words around, dontcha froggy.

Let me understand your point--atheism is impossible since citizen must believe in god regardless of what he says.

Well then, try this one on for size.

Since atheism is impossible due to that logic,every one must believe in god. This creates a contradicition in the need for a Bible or any holy book. Why teach a religion when it is impossible to escape the religious belief? Thus holy books and places of worship are truly unnecessary since people will believe--regardless of what the individual think.


It seems that all religions now need a new fundemental purpose, since teaching about god is not necessary for an individual to believe in god!! Or is it possible that religion is not necessary? Regardless, religion must serve an ulterior motive besides the teaching of god. Whether it is to subvert a population to machinations of a mad man or whatever, religion roles is not to teach about God or his commands.


How do you like that conclusion of your reasoning, froggy? Or did I miss something?


I bet you never realized that atheism is necessary in order for religion to have a purpose.

You said you didn't need faith, but you use it to hold to your idea there is no God. I didn't say you had faith in God.

So what you are saying is that not believing is faith.
But faith is understood to follow a system of articles and/or doctrines central to a religion.
Atheism has no such articles or doctrines. Unless you are claiming that "There is no god" is the central doctrine of Atheism.

Is this what you are suggesting?

 

[N4mddissent]

Explain common endogenous retroviral genomic insertions in the absence of evolution.

Give empirical, reliable, evidence of any form of consciousness existing in the absence of a physical brain.

 

[Diuretic]

......

Give empirical, reliable, evidence of any form of consciousness existing in the absence of a physical brain.

Um.....