Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The core of their beliefs is based on FAITH not evidence
Kindly refrain from imposing your own shortcomings on others.
When you can prove otherwise with actual HARD EVIDENCE. I will do so!
You were provided with the hard evidence in this thread. You have utterly failed to refute any of it. Gainsaying and lying does not negate hard scientific evidence.
You are making your own side look really bad now.
You're befuddled. That's ok. Some advise, though: you may wish to read and learn instead of confirming your appalling ignorance of science by doing nothing more than posting pointless smiley faces.As usual, your ineptitude regarding science leaves you at a disadvantage.The only ones sputtering are the wingers who confuse religion and science.
And the EVIDENCE for which is which?
Still waiting!
CB010.2 Origin of the first cells
There are a number of viable possibilities still being explored.
Tell us about your talking snakes, magical gardens and a 6,000 year old planet.
Being explored doesn't mean anything has been proven or is there hard evidence. You didn't read your own link:
CB010.2 Origin of the first cells
- This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:
In other words they don't have diddly in the way of hard evidence.
As I posted before. Even Scientific American admits the truth:
Pssst Don 8217 t tell the creationists but scientists don 8217 t have a clue how life began Cross-Check Scientific American Blog Network
Omg, you expect her to READ? She doesn't have to read! She used the word "SCIENCE"!
You're befuddled. That's ok. Some advise, though: you may wish to read and learn instead of confirming your appalling ignorance of science by doing nothing more than posting pointless smiley faces.As usual, your ineptitude regarding science leaves you at a disadvantage.And the EVIDENCE for which is which?
Still waiting!
CB010.2 Origin of the first cells
There are a number of viable possibilities still being explored.
Tell us about your talking snakes, magical gardens and a 6,000 year old planet.
Being explored doesn't mean anything has been proven or is there hard evidence. You didn't read your own link:
CB010.2 Origin of the first cells
- This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:
In other words they don't have diddly in the way of hard evidence.
As I posted before. Even Scientific American admits the truth:
Pssst Don 8217 t tell the creationists but scientists don 8217 t have a clue how life began Cross-Check Scientific American Blog Network
Omg, you expect her to READ? She doesn't have to read! She used the word "SCIENCE"!
Are we really all made of stardust Explore physics.org
How the elements got there has already been addressed.Thus will work for you. It has pretty pictures for science illiterate christian extremists.Where have I lied????
You constantly lie by alleging that you have not been provided with hard factual evidence that supports the conditions for life on other planets.
You brought up a periodical table.
Against that's not hard evidence and AGAIN, I could say that Table proves God exists by the same standard.,
How did those elements get there in space?
You have yet to answer that.
You are just going back over the same arguments I already defeated.
Life on Earth - stars produce heavy elements
The chemical elements that define life are produced from the explosions of stars.
I already addressed this.
That's wonderful. That's not hard evidence that life exists on other planets. That only SUGGESTS they could be there.
I could just as EASILY use that same evidence to say it proves God exists, BECAUSE HOW DID THOSE ELEMENTS GET THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?????????
How many more times do we have to go round and round, before you supposedly more intelligent people understand what is HARD EVIDENCE and what is not.
You're not paying attention.You're befuddled. That's ok. Some advise, though: you may wish to read and learn instead of confirming your appalling ignorance of science by doing nothing more than posting pointless smiley faces.As usual, your ineptitude regarding science leaves you at a disadvantage.
CB010.2 Origin of the first cells
There are a number of viable possibilities still being explored.
Tell us about your talking snakes, magical gardens and a 6,000 year old planet.
Being explored doesn't mean anything has been proven or is there hard evidence. You didn't read your own link:
CB010.2 Origin of the first cells
- This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:
In other words they don't have diddly in the way of hard evidence.
As I posted before. Even Scientific American admits the truth:
Pssst Don 8217 t tell the creationists but scientists don 8217 t have a clue how life began Cross-Check Scientific American Blog Network
Omg, you expect her to READ? She doesn't have to read! She used the word "SCIENCE"!
Are we really all made of stardust Explore physics.org
This isn't evidence. It's a blog post that says we are made of star dust and doesn't give any evidence how.
Interesting saying what we are made of doesn't prove HOW WE WERE MADE.
That isn't evidence of how life began.
You are grasping at straws now.
Your "evidence" doesn't even come close to the actual subject.
Pasteur fermentation contagion and proving anegativeYou're befuddled. That's ok. Some advise, though: you may wish to read and learn instead of confirming your appalling ignorance of science by doing nothing more than posting pointless smiley faces.As usual, your ineptitude regarding science leaves you at a disadvantage.
CB010.2 Origin of the first cells
There are a number of viable possibilities still being explored.
Tell us about your talking snakes, magical gardens and a 6,000 year old planet.
Being explored doesn't mean anything has been proven or is there hard evidence. You didn't read your own link:
CB010.2 Origin of the first cells
- This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:
In other words they don't have diddly in the way of hard evidence.
As I posted before. Even Scientific American admits the truth:
Pssst Don 8217 t tell the creationists but scientists don 8217 t have a clue how life began Cross-Check Scientific American Blog Network
Omg, you expect her to READ? She doesn't have to read! She used the word "SCIENCE"!
Are we really all made of stardust Explore physics.org
This isn't evidence. It's a blog post that says we are made of star dust and doesn't give any evidence how.
Interesting saying what we are made of doesn't prove HOW WE WERE MADE.
That isn't evidence of how life began.
You are grasping at straws now.
Your "evidence" doesn't even come close to the actual subject.
How the elements got there has already been addressed.Thus will work for you. It has pretty pictures for science illiterate christian extremists.Where have I lied????
You constantly lie by alleging that you have not been provided with hard factual evidence that supports the conditions for life on other planets.
You brought up a periodical table.
Against that's not hard evidence and AGAIN, I could say that Table proves God exists by the same standard.,
How did those elements get there in space?
You have yet to answer that.
You are just going back over the same arguments I already defeated.
Life on Earth - stars produce heavy elements
The chemical elements that define life are produced from the explosions of stars.
I already addressed this.
That's wonderful. That's not hard evidence that life exists on other planets. That only SUGGESTS they could be there.
I could just as EASILY use that same evidence to say it proves God exists, BECAUSE HOW DID THOSE ELEMENTS GET THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?????????
How many more times do we have to go round and round, before you supposedly more intelligent people understand what is HARD EVIDENCE and what is not.
Pay attention.
Pasteur fermentation contagion and proving anegativeYou're befuddled. That's ok. Some advise, though: you may wish to read and learn instead of confirming your appalling ignorance of science by doing nothing more than posting pointless smiley faces.Being explored doesn't mean anything has been proven or is there hard evidence. You didn't read your own link:
CB010.2 Origin of the first cells
In other words they don't have diddly in the way of hard evidence.
As I posted before. Even Scientific American admits the truth:
Pssst Don 8217 t tell the creationists but scientists don 8217 t have a clue how life began Cross-Check Scientific American Blog Network
Omg, you expect her to READ? She doesn't have to read! She used the word "SCIENCE"!
Are we really all made of stardust Explore physics.org
This isn't evidence. It's a blog post that says we are made of star dust and doesn't give any evidence how.
Interesting saying what we are made of doesn't prove HOW WE WERE MADE.
That isn't evidence of how life began.
You are grasping at straws now.
Your "evidence" doesn't even come close to the actual subject.
You being science illiterate is no excuse.
You're not paying attention.You're befuddled. That's ok. Some advise, though: you may wish to read and learn instead of confirming your appalling ignorance of science by doing nothing more than posting pointless smiley faces.Being explored doesn't mean anything has been proven or is there hard evidence. You didn't read your own link:
CB010.2 Origin of the first cells
In other words they don't have diddly in the way of hard evidence.
As I posted before. Even Scientific American admits the truth:
Pssst Don 8217 t tell the creationists but scientists don 8217 t have a clue how life began Cross-Check Scientific American Blog Network
Omg, you expect her to READ? She doesn't have to read! She used the word "SCIENCE"!
Are we really all made of stardust Explore physics.org
This isn't evidence. It's a blog post that says we are made of star dust and doesn't give any evidence how.
Interesting saying what we are made of doesn't prove HOW WE WERE MADE.
That isn't evidence of how life began.
You are grasping at straws now.
Your "evidence" doesn't even come close to the actual subject.
Denial of facts doesn't give anyone confidence that you're capable of stringing words together into coherent sentences.
I suppose that's your only tactic at this point: denial!How the elements got there has already been addressed.Thus will work for you. It has pretty pictures for science illiterate christian extremists.You constantly lie by alleging that you have not been provided with hard factual evidence that supports the conditions for life on other planets.
You brought up a periodical table.
Against that's not hard evidence and AGAIN, I could say that Table proves God exists by the same standard.,
How did those elements get there in space?
You have yet to answer that.
You are just going back over the same arguments I already defeated.
Life on Earth - stars produce heavy elements
The chemical elements that define life are produced from the explosions of stars.
I already addressed this.
That's wonderful. That's not hard evidence that life exists on other planets. That only SUGGESTS they could be there.
I could just as EASILY use that same evidence to say it proves God exists, BECAUSE HOW DID THOSE ELEMENTS GET THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?????????
How many more times do we have to go round and round, before you supposedly more intelligent people understand what is HARD EVIDENCE and what is not.
Pay attention.
Um, no, it was ASSERTED how they got there. AKA big Bang.
The only problem is there is no hard evidence for the BIG BANG.
I don't say it didn't happen, I'm just saying, I can't prove it happened, and neither can you.
And I could just as easily ask HOW that Big Bang was set off?
You have the hard evidence for that?
I know you don't.
You're not paying attention.You're befuddled. That's ok. Some advise, though: you may wish to read and learn instead of confirming your appalling ignorance of science by doing nothing more than posting pointless smiley faces.Omg, you expect her to READ? She doesn't have to read! She used the word "SCIENCE"!
Are we really all made of stardust Explore physics.org
This isn't evidence. It's a blog post that says we are made of star dust and doesn't give any evidence how.
Interesting saying what we are made of doesn't prove HOW WE WERE MADE.
That isn't evidence of how life began.
You are grasping at straws now.
Your "evidence" doesn't even come close to the actual subject.
Denial of facts doesn't give anyone confidence that you're capable of stringing words together into coherent sentences.
But YOU are the one denying facts.
Do you have evidence for how life began?
If you do not why are you so afraid to concede that?
Pasteur fermentation contagion and proving anegativeYou're befuddled. That's ok. Some advise, though: you may wish to read and learn instead of confirming your appalling ignorance of science by doing nothing more than posting pointless smiley faces.Omg, you expect her to READ? She doesn't have to read! She used the word "SCIENCE"!
Are we really all made of stardust Explore physics.org
This isn't evidence. It's a blog post that says we are made of star dust and doesn't give any evidence how.
Interesting saying what we are made of doesn't prove HOW WE WERE MADE.
That isn't evidence of how life began.
You are grasping at straws now.
Your "evidence" doesn't even come close to the actual subject.
You being science illiterate is no excuse.
I'm not proving a negative,
I made Positive statements.
There is no hard evidence for God.
There is no hard evidence for how life began.
Those are positive statements.
I am not asking you to prove a negative, like "prove God doesn't exist."
That would be asking you to prove a negative and that is illogical
I am saying to prove there is evidence for how life began.
That's not asking you to prove a negative.
The negative is, there IS no evidence.
Resigning before you're fired is a safe course of action.Okay, I got work to do atheists.
It's safe to stick your heads in now.
This is how you defeat them.
Actually you have defeated yourself but you lack the intelligence to appreciate your situation.
Yeah, I can appreciate you are reduced to bluffing, because you can't produce evidence and you can't concede the evidence does not exist.
You are just going back over the same arguments I already defeated.
Repeating your lies onlyyour hole even deeper.
You haven't "defeated" any of the hard evidence that I provided.
Continuing to lie about that just makes you look ignorant and stupid.
This seems to be the only thing this "intelligent atheist" can do.
When confronted with facts he cannot refute, he just declares them lies and rants.
Kind of like what all bigots do when they are confronted with evidence that says they are wrong.
But I have yet to hear him/her prove where I am lying?
A) There is no Hard evidence that God exists.
B) There is no hard evidence for how life began.
C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.
If those are lies, please provide the evidence to prove them lies.
STILL WAITING!
The core of their beliefs is based on FAITH not evidence
Kindly refrain from imposing your own shortcomings on others.
When you can prove otherwise with actual HARD EVIDENCE. I will do so!
You were provided with the hard evidence in this thread. You have utterly failed to refute any of it. Gainsaying and lying does not negate hard scientific evidence.
You are making your own side look really bad now.
No I was not.
And if I'm making my own side "look bad" why is your side the side ranting?
The only problem is there is no hard evidence for the BIG BANG.
But YOU are the one denying facts.
Sucker your opponent into a tenuous position.
Then get into a battle based on Skepticism.
Win because people will favor their beliefs of God over questionable scientific theories.
That is the formula, right.
What happens if the Atheists Is honest enough to say "I don't know?" when you ask "How did life start on Earth?" I think you maybe left in a pickle there.
THEN they have to ADMIT Creationism is just as valid a theory as any of theirs.
I have yet to have an atheist do that.
Their arrogance won't permit them.
Are you arguing that creationism is just as valid as the theory of evolution, or the theory of abiogenesis?
You do know that creationism is virtually unverifiable. The only people that will express confidence in it as a scientific theory are basically YEC and those who take the Bible literally.
You are ignoring something. THERE ISN'T A WAY TO VALIDATE ANY OF THE THEORIES.
No matter how much you insist one theory is more plausible than another, there is no way to validate which theory is true.
Even Scientific American has to admit the truth!
Pssst Don 8217 t tell the creationists but scientists don 8217 t have a clue how life began Cross-Check Scientific American Blog NetworkPssst! Don’t tell the creationists, but scientists don’t have a clue how life began
Well, the Creationists know that "science" is full of bull. We KNOW you guys got nothing.
You can't declare one thing "science" and one thing "religion" without a scrap of evidence to back up those arguments and the truth is you have nothing!
