*What Is Death To An Ahteist*?

[Skull Pilot]

It's not just the question concerning a cell.

Blood for the body,white and red blood cells.

A heart to pump the blood throughout the body.

The Brain ,the computer that runs the body.

Eyes dilating because of the amount of light or to focus.

The many organs needed for the body to function.

I don't see a natural process at work i see a creator at work that is beyond our comprehension.

Yep we are the result of an alien college kids failed science project.

Keep in mind that our current tech woudl have been beyond our comprehension a few hundred years ago.

Well so far science has not been able to show life can spontaneously begin on it's own.

But that is no reason to think an imaginary man in the sky created life.

Our brains have a physical limit to what can be understood. We may not know what that limit is yet but that in itself does not mean there is no limit.

My dog will never be able to do algebra, she is physically lacking the intelligence to do so. There are certainly things in the universe that we will never be able to comprehend because of our limitations.

The flaw in your reasoning is that if we can't explain it then there must be an explanation we can understand. We may never know, not because the answers aren't out there but because we are incapable of comprehending them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yep we are the result of an alien college kids failed science project.

Keep in mind that our current tech woudl have been beyond our comprehension a few hundred years ago.

Well so far science has not been able to show life can spontaneously begin on it's own.

But that is no reason to think an imaginary man in the sky created life.

Our brains have a physical limit to what can be understood. We may not know what that limit is yet but that in itself does not mean there is no limit.

My dog will never be able to do algebra, she is physically lacking the intelligence to do so. There are certainly things in the universe that we will never be able to comprehend because of our limitations.

The flaw in your reasoning is that if we can't explain it then there must be an explanation we can understand. We may never know, not because the answers aren't out there but because we are incapable of comprehending them.

There is no reason to assume life spontaneously started on it's own either so how is my reasoning flawed and not yours ?

To me there is to much evidence of design to reject life was a product of design.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well so far science has not been able to show life can spontaneously begin on it's own.

But that is no reason to think an imaginary man in the sky created life.

Our brains have a physical limit to what can be understood. We may not know what that limit is yet but that in itself does not mean there is no limit.

My dog will never be able to do algebra, she is physically lacking the intelligence to do so. There are certainly things in the universe that we will never be able to comprehend because of our limitations.

The flaw in your reasoning is that if we can't explain it then there must be an explanation we can understand. We may never know, not because the answers aren't out there but because we are incapable of comprehending them.

There is no reason to assume life spontaneously started on it's own either so how is my reasoning flawed and not yours ?

To me there is to much evidence of design to reject life was a product of design.

Your reasoning is flawed because you are denying the possibility that life did indeed happen by chance.

With the size and scope of the universe, there is indeed a very good statistical chance that life began spontaneously. When you are dealing with infinite numbers, an infinite number of outcomes is possible.

That we have not yet duplicated one of an infinite number of possibilities is not proof that that particular possibility does not exist.

The simple easy to understand answer is that the man in the sky did it. You can accept that answer if you want. Personally that answer is not good enough for me.

 

[Youwerecreated]

But that is no reason to think an imaginary man in the sky created life.

Our brains have a physical limit to what can be understood. We may not know what that limit is yet but that in itself does not mean there is no limit.

My dog will never be able to do algebra, she is physically lacking the intelligence to do so. There are certainly things in the universe that we will never be able to comprehend because of our limitations.

The flaw in your reasoning is that if we can't explain it then there must be an explanation we can understand. We may never know, not because the answers aren't out there but because we are incapable of comprehending them.

There is no reason to assume life spontaneously started on it's own either so how is my reasoning flawed and not yours ?

To me there is to much evidence of design to reject life was a product of design.

Your reasoning is flawed because you are denying the possibility that life did indeed happen by chance.

With the size and scope of the universe, there is indeed a very good statistical chance that life began spontaneously. When you are dealing with infinite numbers, an infinite number of outcomes is possible.

That we have not yet duplicated one of an infinite number of possibilities is not proof that that particular possibility does not exist.

The simple easy to understand answer is that the man in the sky did it. You can accept that answer if you want. Personally that answer is not good enough for me.

Ok let me point out the flaw in your resoning.If we are a product of a natural process and most people on your side believe life arose from the big bang then why is there not much life ,if any life ,beyond our atmosphere ?

My view is not flawed, because there is no evidence that a natural process produced life as we know it. However there is plenty of evidence to suggest intelligence is the action that brought all life into existence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

But that is no reason to think an imaginary man in the sky created life.

Our brains have a physical limit to what can be understood. We may not know what that limit is yet but that in itself does not mean there is no limit.

My dog will never be able to do algebra, she is physically lacking the intelligence to do so. There are certainly things in the universe that we will never be able to comprehend because of our limitations.

The flaw in your reasoning is that if we can't explain it then there must be an explanation we can understand. We may never know, not because the answers aren't out there but because we are incapable of comprehending them.

There is no reason to assume life spontaneously started on it's own either so how is my reasoning flawed and not yours ?

To me there is to much evidence of design to reject life was a product of design.

Your reasoning is flawed because you are denying the possibility that life did indeed happen by chance.

With the size and scope of the universe, there is indeed a very good statistical chance that life began spontaneously. When you are dealing with infinite numbers, an infinite number of outcomes is possible.

That we have not yet duplicated one of an infinite number of possibilities is not proof that that particular possibility does not exist.

The simple easy to understand answer is that the man in the sky did it. You can accept that answer if you want. Personally that answer is not good enough for me.

Do you deny the possibility of a creator ?

 

[JScott]

There is no reason to assume life spontaneously started on it's own either so how is my reasoning flawed and not yours ?

To me there is to much evidence of design to reject life was a product of design.

Your reasoning is flawed because you are denying the possibility that life did indeed happen by chance.

With the size and scope of the universe, there is indeed a very good statistical chance that life began spontaneously. When you are dealing with infinite numbers, an infinite number of outcomes is possible.

That we have not yet duplicated one of an infinite number of possibilities is not proof that that particular possibility does not exist.

The simple easy to understand answer is that the man in the sky did it. You can accept that answer if you want. Personally that answer is not good enough for me.

Ok let me point out the flaw in your resoning.If we are a product of a natural process and most people on your side believe life arose from the big bang then why is there not much life ,if any life ,beyond our atmosphere ?

My view is not flawed, because there is no evidence that a natural process produced life as we know it. However there is plenty of evidence to suggest intelligence is the action that brought all life into existence.

You do not know what kind of life there is beyond our solar system, thats a fact.

Your view is flawed. There is no evidence that intelligence brought all life into existence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your reasoning is flawed because you are denying the possibility that life did indeed happen by chance.

With the size and scope of the universe, there is indeed a very good statistical chance that life began spontaneously. When you are dealing with infinite numbers, an infinite number of outcomes is possible.

That we have not yet duplicated one of an infinite number of possibilities is not proof that that particular possibility does not exist.

The simple easy to understand answer is that the man in the sky did it. You can accept that answer if you want. Personally that answer is not good enough for me.

Ok let me point out the flaw in your resoning.If we are a product of a natural process and most people on your side believe life arose from the big bang then why is there not much life ,if any life ,beyond our atmosphere ?

My view is not flawed, because there is no evidence that a natural process produced life as we know it. However there is plenty of evidence to suggest intelligence is the action that brought all life into existence.

You do not know what kind of life there is beyond our solar system, thats a fact.

Your view is flawed. There is no evidence that intelligence brought all life into existence.

You 're simply in denial.

There is zero evidence of life period out beyond our atmosphere,do you agree ?

 

[Montrovant]

There is no reason to assume life spontaneously started on it's own either so how is my reasoning flawed and not yours ?

To me there is to much evidence of design to reject life was a product of design.

Your reasoning is flawed because you are denying the possibility that life did indeed happen by chance.

With the size and scope of the universe, there is indeed a very good statistical chance that life began spontaneously. When you are dealing with infinite numbers, an infinite number of outcomes is possible.

That we have not yet duplicated one of an infinite number of possibilities is not proof that that particular possibility does not exist.

The simple easy to understand answer is that the man in the sky did it. You can accept that answer if you want. Personally that answer is not good enough for me.

Ok let me point out the flaw in your resoning.If we are a product of a natural process and most people on your side believe life arose from the big bang then why is there not much life ,if any life ,beyond our atmosphere ?

My view is not flawed, because there is no evidence that a natural process produced life as we know it. However there is plenty of evidence to suggest intelligence is the action that brought all life into existence.

How do you go from using the complexity of life and the many different variables which must occur in the proper way as being evidence of a creator to asking why we don't see more life in the universe? Your own arguments have already explained why there is not more life; it takes quite a few factors happening correctly to sustain (and possibly allow for the creation of) life.

There is not 'plenty' of evidence to suggest intelligent creation. Certainly not more evidence of that then of spontaneous creation. What we have for the most part are guesses, theories and speculation. You assume your speculation is based on evidence while that of others is not; yet you provide no real evidence for your beliefs. What you offer boils down to, 'Science cannot explain this, therefor I must be right'. I reject that.

Further, I was unaware the big bang theory had anything at all to do with the creation of life. I was under the impression it was only about the formation of the universe.

I accept my and humanity's ignorance regarding the creation of life and the universe. I accept the possibility of a creator(s). Do you accept any possibility there was a creator other than the one you believe in, or none at all?

 

[JScott]

Sorry bout that,


1. Where are the bones?
2. Bones from billions of year of dead dinosaurs?
3. And hundreds of thousands of years of dead humans evolving?
4. And explain to me how dino's and man walked together in Glen Rose, Texas?
5. CHECKMATE!!!!!!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

All animals that walked this earth are 100% biodegradable and recyclable. Conditions must be perfect in order to preserve a fossil. If I used your logic then we would also expect to see every tree that ever grew petrified after it fell to the ground, every insect that ever lived would leave a carcass behind. If what you think were correct, the earth would be covered in the remains of all creatures that ever lived.

Then why did darwin make the claim that if his theory be true there would be millions of transitional fossils recovered ?

Have you heard of fossilised hats and shoes that were less then ten years old and completely fossilised,and can you explain these so called perfect conditions for things to fossilise ?

All of your fossilized objects were found in water. There is a difference between the fossilization of hats or hams to that of dinosaur bones.

Im not going to explain it because you dont care anyway.

 

[JScott]

Sorry bout that,


1. Where are the bones?

Some few fossilised, most didn't. Where are the bones from the Flood?
Same answer, and why does the Bible not explicitly mention all the dinosaurs?
Individuals don't evolve and there are plenty of remains of ancestoral humans and other branches of homo.

4. And explain to me how dino's and man walked together in Glen Rose, Texas?

Even leading Creationists don't use that argument: The Paluxy River Mystery [qutoe]In view of these developments, none of the four trails at the Taylor site can today be regarded as unquestionably of human origin.

The bones from the floods can be found in the oceans oh and they have found valleys of many different skeletons seemed to be washed in to an area that formed as a catch and was the result of a flood.

A global flood the bones can be found anywhere on the planet,how bout sea fossils found on mountain tops far inland.

The bible does not go into detail on many different animals. But it does to the most important so called animal the human.

There are evidences from petroglyph drawings of creatures accurately being drawn in these petroglyphs that supposedly was not discovered by man until a few hundered years ago. How can creatures be accurately drawn if they were never seen ? The code word in the bible and early times for dinos was the word dragons.[/QUOTE]

Link for the "valleys of many different skeletons"?

 

[JScott]

1. They are mentioned, in old testament.

No, there are references to things such as "Leviathan" but it's not clear what is meant. And there were thousands of species of dinosaur yet no mention in the OT.



How do you know that? Or is that just a guess as it's the only thing that could possibly explain/defer the question? We have plenty of layers of fossils, but nothing that looks like a world wide flood.

11. If he indeed carved these foot prints in was a Micheal DeAnglo of sculpture of Texas in that era.

Well, since I've never heard of Micheal DeAnglo and can't find and mention of him on the internet, that's not a high standard is it?

There are pockets of fossils found all around the world.

Prove it.

 

[JScott]

The bones from the floods can be found in the oceans oh and they have found valleys of many different skeletons seemed to be washed in to an area that formed as a catch and was the result of a flood.

Floods have happened, and frequently. There's no evidence of a single world-wide flood, however.

A global flood the bones can be found anywhere on the planet,how bout sea fossils found on mountain tops far inland.

What about them? The Earth has changed and what were once seas/oceans are no longer, and mountains have raised up.

There is no evidence the global flood did not happen right ?but there is evidence of major flooding.

I think you need to look more into the grand canyon for evidence of the global flooding.

There is evidence of global flooding world wide at the tops of mountains.

Link?

 

[JScott]

You just totally spun away from my question.

How come children don't know hate until its taught to them over time ?

Because all behavior is learned behavior.

The roots of racism are in primitive xenophobia. What don't you understand about that?

Many of our behaviors are rooted in evolution. Just think of the fight or flight response. Once it was a completely necessary response to danger but today that same flight or flight response is not always appropriate and is a major cause of stress related diseases.

So you think an adult is mature enough for rational thought and a child is not.

Is it more rational to be a racist ? now the next problem for your view .how come only a small minority of humans would be considered a racist if it is a part of evolution ? we both agree that it is a learned behavior.

Every single person on Earth is prejudice of one thing or another.

 

[JScott]

You can do a quick search to see many things have fossilised.

There should be plenty of fossilised bones if this earth is as old as some say.

Not to mention all transitional fossils.

Fossils - Window To The Past (Home)

Why would you think there would be a preserved fossil for every animal that ever walked the earth?

I would think there would be a transitional fossil for every major group that crossed over.

The point gould and eldredge made was there was no change at all.

Thats not what they said at all. What they said was there were evolutionary changes then a stasis of evolution for a long period of time, then a change again.

 

[JScott]

I am getting that impression as well.

I'm no religious scholar... What does the bible say to do when you are getting beat down like a red headed step child on the internets????

I'm sure one guy will just say he is sorry.

Funny you guys seem to think and applaud someone who uses theory not proof to debate.

I am still waiting for proof that a child learns racism through evolution.

Care to tackle that question ?

You havent shown any proof of anything yet. You havent even shown links.

 

[JScott]

I would think there would be a transitional fossil for every major group that crossed over.

The point gould and eldredge made was there was no change at all.

There very well may have been. But animal remains are highly organic and in most cases fossils just do not exist as the conditions were not optimal for preservation.

And unless you want to excavate every square inch of the planet it's quite possible that many existing fossils will never be found.

Ok give an evoluitionist enough rope and eventually he will hang himself.

If we open coffins up will we find remains of the buried person ?

Explain how remains of dinosaurs have been recovered all over the earth but yet not one transitional fossil connecting major groups ?

If a coffin is sealed fossilization wont occur.

You choose to ignore what science has to offer so in your mind no transitional fossils have been found.

 

[HUGGY]

Ok let me point out the flaw in your resoning.If we are a product of a natural process and most people on your side believe life arose from the big bang then why is there not much life ,if any life ,beyond our atmosphere ?

My view is not flawed, because there is no evidence that a natural process produced life as we know it. However there is plenty of evidence to suggest intelligence is the action that brought all life into existence.

You do not know what kind of life there is beyond our solar system, thats a fact.

Your view is flawed. There is no evidence that intelligence brought all life into existence.

You 're simply in denial.

There is zero evidence of life period out beyond our atmosphere,do you agree ?

No sir. It is YOU that is in denial. The very fact that life exists here is prima facia evidence of life elsewhere. Your inclination would only hold true if there was no evidence of life at all and if that true this debate would not be occurring.

 

[JScott]

Really , a few questions for you,just a simple honesty test.

1. Is a t.v. a product of design or a product of chance ?

2. Is a home a product of design or chance ?

3.Is a car a product of design or chance ?

4. Is a computer a product of design or chance ?

Each and everyone of these items are complex products of design , they could not of happened by chance.

Now lets consider far more complex items.

1. The human brain a product of design or chance ?

2. Any eye a product of design or chance ?

3. The heart a product of design or chance ?

4. A cell a product of design or chance ?

5 . The earth having the sun and moon for light by design or chance ?

6. The earth containing the right amount of gravity a product of design or chance ?

7. Humans exhaling carbon dioxide what plants need to breathe and plants breathing off oxygen what humans need to breathe a porduct of design or chance ?

8. Four seasons for the earth a product of design or chance ?

9. The earth continues to spin on it's axis without any help that can be seen a product of design or chance ?

10. What would happen if the earth stopped rotating on it's axis ?

Answer


Earth is rotating at a speed of about 1100 miles per hour. If our planet suddenly stopped rotating, the atmosphere would still be in motion at that speed. The atmosphere would be moving so fast it would literally sweep the land masses clear of anything not anchored to bedrock, this would mean rocks, soil, trees, buildings, people and animals. All would be swept up into the atmosphere.

If the Earth's rotation slowed down gradually over millions of years, and this is the most likely scenario, it would be a very different story. If the Earth slowed down to one rotation every year, called synchronous rotation, every area on Earth would be in either sunlight or darkness for one year. This would be similar to what the Moon goes through where for two weeks the front side of the Moon is illuminated by the Sun followed by the front side being in darkness for two weeks.

But what if the Earth stopped rotating completely? In that case, one half the Earth would be in daylight for half the year while the other side would be in darkness. The second half of the year it would be reversed. Temperature variations would be far more extreme then they are now. The temperature gradient would affect the wind circulation also. Air would move from the equator to the poles rather then in wind systems parallel to the equator as they are now.

Even stranger would be the change in the Sun's position in the sky. In the above scenario, Sun would just have a seasonal motion up and down the sky towards the south due to the orbit of the Earth and its axial tilt. You would see the elevation of the Sun increase or decrease in the sky just as we now see the elevation of the Sun change from a single point on the Earth due to the Earth's daily rotation.

As an example, say we live at 30 degrees North latitude. In the Summer, at a longitude where the Sun was exactly overhead, it would slide gradually to the horizon as Fall approached, but since the Sun has moved 90 degrees in its orbit, it would now be due west. As Winter approached, you would now be located on the dark side of the Earth. You would have to move to a longitude 180 degrees around the Earth to see the Sun 1/2 way up the sky because in the Winter, the Sun is 50 degrees south of its summer location in the sky.

There would be other effects of the Earth's rotation slowing also. The magnetic field of the Earth is generated by a dynamo effect that involves its rotation. If the Earth stopped rotating, the magnetic field would no longer be regenerated and it would decay away to some low, residual value due to the very small component which is 'fossilized' in its iron-rich rocks. There would be no more 'northern lights' and the Van Allen radiation belts would probably vanish, as would our protection from cosmic rays and other high-energy particles. Losing this protection would cause serious health issues.

Be glad for our Earthly rotation, without it we would be much worse off !

Product of design or chance ?

You can not compare man made items to biologic items.

Says who ? Someone who rejects the idea that someone is out there greater then man and he gave man the ability to design and create as well. But truly you can't bring yourself to admit the evidence provided shows design.

Sure a TV shows man made design. The universe, not really.

 

[Dr.House]

You do not know what kind of life there is beyond our solar system, thats a fact.

Your view is flawed. There is no evidence that intelligence brought all life into existence.

You 're simply in denial.

There is zero evidence of life period out beyond our atmosphere,do you agree ?

No sir. It is YOU that is in denial. The very fact that life exists here is prima facia evidence of life elsewhere. Your inclination would only hold true if there was no evidence of life at all and if that true this debate would not be occurring.

Without faith, one cannot make that extrapolation... There is no scientific proof of life outside this planet, yet you certainly believe there is...

Your faith in your belief is obviously strong, despite no corroborating evidence...

 

[JScott]

Then why didn't the indians attack the pilgrims of the mayflower if what you say is true ?

The truth is they only felt fear of something that never happened.

Indians did attack the pilgrims. They also attacked Jamestown, the first American settlement.

I have read they didn't and they did,but What was the purpose of the thanksgiving meals ? Now I know we Indians did attack the white but it was for the same reasons we attacked other tribes.

The Pilgrims helped one tribe out by decimating another tribe. And after that they had Thanksgiving.