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.
"Atheists sure have a lot of FAITH into believe life somehow came into existence out of non-life."
It's not faith, if there is substantial evidence to support the premise.
1. There is non-life
2. Life evolves from non-life.
That's not 'somehow' but 'evolution', otherwise 'somehow' would be 'god', relying on of course that the evidence is sound, which it isn't for the case of a god, as without faith there is no god.
If there is a god, why do think he put us Atheists and Agnostics here in the first place? It wouldn't have been to sit pretty and stare at walls, but to test your faith. Isn't the whole point (of the christian god at least) to make his followers follow without evidence, because their faith in god is enough.
In response to your other response I give you this;
Basing your knowledge out of a lack of knowledge is dangerous.
Well, for one thing, I've actually done the math.
It's considered a mathematical improbability, meaning the chances of it not occurring are so ridiculously small that they almost don't deserve mention.
Give me your formula and everything that was figured into your equation and i will see if you numbers are even close.
Have you ever heard of the Drake equation?
Well it's a simple extrapolation of the same probabilistic mathematics. Have fun, I won't do your homework for you, I'll just present you with the information you need to come to an informed conclusion.
That and I'm interested in what kind of mathematical formula you would take to constitute your position.
99.9% certain, the remaining 0.01% is that we are part of a gods wet dream and we aren't real. As for hard physical evidence, Darwin and Dawkins pretty much have covered that. But to be honest I am not kept awake at night by it, I leave other people to rant on and argue over evolution and god."Atheists sure have a lot of FAITH into believe life somehow came into existence out of non-life."
It's not faith, if there is substantial evidence to support the premise.
1. There is non-life
2. Life evolves from non-life.
That's not 'somehow' but 'evolution', otherwise 'somehow' would be 'god', relying on of course that the evidence is sound, which it isn't for the case of a god, as without faith there is no god.
If there is a god, why do think he put us Atheists and Agnostics here in the first place? It wouldn't have been to sit pretty and stare at walls, but to test your faith. Isn't the whole point (of the christian god at least) to make his followers follow without evidence, because their faith in god is enough.
Are you 100 percent beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are right?
Would you you bet the life of a love one on your belief?
If you say you are 100 percent sure where is your hard phyical evidence toi support what you believe?
99.9% certain, the remaining 0.01% is that we are part of a gods wet dream and we aren't real. As for hard physical evidence, Darwin and Dawkins pretty much have covered that. But to be honest I am not kept awake at night by it, I leave other people to rant on and argue over evolution and god."Atheists sure have a lot of FAITH into believe life somehow came into existence out of non-life."
It's not faith, if there is substantial evidence to support the premise.
1. There is non-life
2. Life evolves from non-life.
That's not 'somehow' but 'evolution', otherwise 'somehow' would be 'god', relying on of course that the evidence is sound, which it isn't for the case of a god, as without faith there is no god.
If there is a god, why do think he put us Atheists and Agnostics here in the first place? It wouldn't have been to sit pretty and stare at walls, but to test your faith. Isn't the whole point (of the christian god at least) to make his followers follow without evidence, because their faith in god is enough.
Are you 100 percent beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are right?
Would you you bet the life of a love one on your belief?
If you say you are 100 percent sure where is your hard phyical evidence toi support what you believe?
You still seem to think this has something to do with evolution, which again shows you don't actually understand the concept. Beautiful. Really what are you looking for as an answer? A continent? Another planet? The mere question of "where?" is foolish. Perhaps you should try asking it another way. Are you trying to assess the evolutionary predecessor of prehistoric man?Tell me junior where did the so called prehistoric man come from?
Actually I just said you don't understand evolution. Don't blame me when YOU were personally hurt when I called you on a topic for which you have repeatedly showed a lack of understanding. Also, I wouldn't go calling someone else thin skinned when you react to being proven wrong with the cursing immaturity of an angry tween. That other dude putting you on an ignore list is a lot more mature than your thin-skinned temper tantrums.I was very nice until the asshat dumber than a hick came along and start insulting me. So I pushed back. Don't be so fucking thinned skinned if you are leave this fucking board
You just proved you don't know what a theory is in your question. That was talented.Sir you really think i don't know what a theory is ?its a copout explanation for the lack of evidence.
Go jump off a building, gravity is obviously a cop-out since it's "only a theory"
Usually i try to refrain from getting personal, don't push it or you might need to add me to your ignore list.
Taking your logic to an extreme is not intended as a personal insult, I'm simply following your assertion to it's logical conclusion.
Which is that your assertion is far too generalized and non-applicable to be of sufficient use to your argument.
I apologize if that was construed as a personal insult.
Usually i try to refrain from getting personal, don't push it or you might need to add me to your ignore list.
Taking your logic to an extreme is not intended as a personal insult, I'm simply following your assertion to it's logical conclusion.
Which is that your assertion is far too generalized and non-applicable to be of sufficient use to your argument.
I apologize if that was construed as a personal insult.
Wind, there is plenty of evidence for.
Gravity, there is plenty of evidence for.
There is zero evidence for evolution to be a theory.
Wind and gravity are facts.
Life coming from non-life there is no evidence for. If you can't answer this question all the other beliefs pertaining to a natural process for life called evolution are built on speculation and faith and imagination.
You can't take a living organism and claim it's product of a natural process without proving that a natural process is responsible for all life get it ? evolution should even be considered a theory.
I am glad you corrected me it caused me to pause and clarify what i meant.
You still seem to think this has something to do with evolution, which again shows you don't actually understand the concept. Beautiful. Really what are you looking for as an answer? A continent? Another planet? The mere question of "where?" is foolish. Perhaps you should try asking it another way. Are you trying to assess the evolutionary predecessor of prehistoric man?Tell me junior where did the so called prehistoric man come from?
Actually I just said you don't understand evolution. Don't blame me when YOU were personally hurt when I called you on a topic for which you have repeatedly showed a lack of understanding. Also, I wouldn't go calling someone else thin skinned when you react to being proven wrong with the cursing immaturity of an angry tween. That other dude putting you on an ignore list is a lot more mature than your thin-skinned temper tantrums.I was very nice until the asshat dumber than a hick came along and start insulting me. So I pushed back. Don't be so fucking thinned skinned if you are leave this fucking board
You just proved you don't know what a theory is in your question. That was talented.Sir you really think i don't know what a theory is ?its a copout explanation for the lack of evidence.
99.9% certain, the remaining 0.01% is that we are part of a gods wet dream and we aren't real. As for hard physical evidence, Darwin and Dawkins pretty much have covered that. But to be honest I am not kept awake at night by it, I leave other people to rant on and argue over evolution and god."Atheists sure have a lot of FAITH into believe life somehow came into existence out of non-life."
It's not faith, if there is substantial evidence to support the premise.
1. There is non-life
2. Life evolves from non-life.
That's not 'somehow' but 'evolution', otherwise 'somehow' would be 'god', relying on of course that the evidence is sound, which it isn't for the case of a god, as without faith there is no god.
If there is a god, why do think he put us Atheists and Agnostics here in the first place? It wouldn't have been to sit pretty and stare at walls, but to test your faith. Isn't the whole point (of the christian god at least) to make his followers follow without evidence, because their faith in god is enough.
Are you 100 percent beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are right?
Would you you bet the life of a love one on your belief?
If you say you are 100 percent sure where is your hard phyical evidence toi support what you believe?
You still seem to think this has something to do with evolution, which again shows you don't actually understand the concept. Beautiful. Really what are you looking for as an answer? A continent? Another planet? The mere question of "where?" is foolish. Perhaps you should try asking it another way. Are you trying to assess the evolutionary predecessor of prehistoric man?Tell me junior where did the so called prehistoric man come from?
Actually I just said you don't understand evolution. Don't blame me when YOU were personally hurt when I called you on a topic for which you have repeatedly showed a lack of understanding. Also, I wouldn't go calling someone else thin skinned when you react to being proven wrong with the cursing immaturity of an angry tween. That other dude putting you on an ignore list is a lot more mature than your thin-skinned temper tantrums.
You just proved you don't know what a theory is in your question. That was talented.Sir you really think i don't know what a theory is ?its a copout explanation for the lack of evidence.
Yes i probably should have said it differently .There is zero evidence to make evolution a theory see my other responses on the issue.
I should not have reminded him it was a theory because there is no evidence to make it a theory like many other so called theories that are taught in schools lacking evidence.
They keep moving the goall post when you get thenm cornneredTaking your logic to an extreme is not intended as a personal insult, I'm simply following your assertion to it's logical conclusion.
Which is that your assertion is far too generalized and non-applicable to be of sufficient use to your argument.
I apologize if that was construed as a personal insult.
Wind, there is plenty of evidence for.
Gravity, there is plenty of evidence for.
There is zero evidence for evolution to be a theory.
Wind and gravity are facts.
Life coming from non-life there is no evidence for. If you can't answer this question all the other beliefs pertaining to a natural process for life called evolution are built on speculation and faith and imagination.
You can't take a living organism and claim it's product of a natural process without proving that a natural process is responsible for all life get it ? evolution should even be considered a theory.
I am glad you corrected me it caused me to pause and clarify what i meant.
Evolution is not a theory of the origin of life from non living material, it is a theory of the origin of species. Once again, as your side loves to do, you are creating a straw man of evolution and "defeating" it. Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis, the same way the theory of relativity does not deal with the big bang theory. How many times does this have to be clarified?
99.9% certain, the remaining 0.01% is that we are part of a gods wet dream and we aren't real. As for hard physical evidence, Darwin and Dawkins pretty much have covered that. But to be honest I am not kept awake at night by it, I leave other people to rant on and argue over evolution and god.Are you 100 percent beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are right?
Would you you bet the life of a love one on your belief?
If you say you are 100 percent sure where is your hard phyical evidence toi support what you believe?
Well then to be blunt you are using faith to sustain your belief system in evolution
Wind, there is plenty of evidence for.
Gravity, there is plenty of evidence for.
There is zero evidence for evolution to be a theory.
Wind and gravity are facts.
Life coming from non-life there is no evidence for. If you can't answer this question all the other beliefs pertaining to a natural process for life called evolution are built on speculation and faith and imagination.
You can't take a living organism and claim it's product of a natural process without proving that a natural process is responsible for all life get it ? evolution should even be considered a theory.
I am glad you corrected me it caused me to pause and clarify what i meant.
Evolution is not a theory of the origin of life from non living material, it is a theory of the origin of species. Once again, as your side loves to do, you are creating a straw man of evolution and "defeating" it. Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis, the same way the theory of relativity does not deal with the big bang theory. How many times does this have to be clarified?
But if you're gonna say life came about through evolution absent of a creator you need to show the origins of life. Why do you think they have worked so hard in the labs trying to show life can come from a natural process ? Your side knows evolution has to be shown to be a natural process even from the beginning of life or they can't rule out a creator.
You still seem to think this has something to do with evolution, which again shows you don't actually understand the concept. Beautiful. Really what are you looking for as an answer? A continent? Another planet? The mere question of "where?" is foolish. Perhaps you should try asking it another way. Are you trying to assess the evolutionary predecessor of prehistoric man?
Actually I just said you don't understand evolution. Don't blame me when YOU were personally hurt when I called you on a topic for which you have repeatedly showed a lack of understanding. Also, I wouldn't go calling someone else thin skinned when you react to being proven wrong with the cursing immaturity of an angry tween. That other dude putting you on an ignore list is a lot more mature than your thin-skinned temper tantrums.
You just proved you don't know what a theory is in your question. That was talented.
Yes i probably should have said it differently .There is zero evidence to make evolution a theory see my other responses on the issue.
I should not have reminded him it was a theory because there is no evidence to make it a theory like many other so called theories that are taught in schools lacking evidence.
So has anyone come up with the origins of life on earth?
99.9% certain, the remaining 0.01% is that we are part of a gods wet dream and we aren't real. As for hard physical evidence, Darwin and Dawkins pretty much have covered that. But to be honest I am not kept awake at night by it, I leave other people to rant on and argue over evolution and god.
Well then to be blunt you are using faith to sustain your belief system in evolution
Exactly ,if they can't show life came from non-life their whole theory is based in faith.
99.9% certain, the remaining 0.01% is that we are part of a gods wet dream and we aren't real. As for hard physical evidence, Darwin and Dawkins pretty much have covered that. But to be honest I am not kept awake at night by it, I leave other people to rant on and argue over evolution and god.Are you 100 percent beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are right?
Would you you bet the life of a love one on your belief?
If you say you are 100 percent sure where is your hard phyical evidence toi support what you believe?
Well then to be blunt you are using faith to sustain your belief system in evolution
99.9% certain, the remaining 0.01% is that we are part of a gods wet dream and we aren't real. As for hard physical evidence, Darwin and Dawkins pretty much have covered that. But to be honest I am not kept awake at night by it, I leave other people to rant on and argue over evolution and god.
Well then to be blunt you are using faith to sustain your belief system in evolution
Yes they claim life is a product of evoluition but they totally ignore the most important question on how evolution could have started.since they have no answer as to how evolution got it's start,it is funny how they ignore the most important part to prove evolution. But they have been trying to show it could happen but on the other hand since they have no answer they claim evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.
Well then to be blunt you are using faith to sustain your belief system in evolution
Yes they claim life is a product of evoluition but they totally ignore the most important question on how evolution could have started.since they have no answer as to how evolution got it's start,it is funny how they ignore the most important part to prove evolution. But they have been trying to show it could happen but on the other hand since they have no answer they claim evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.
Whether or not they think it's faith to believe in something that you cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt is trusting in faith that you are right
Usually i try to refrain from getting personal, don't push it or you might need to add me to your ignore list.
Taking your logic to an extreme is not intended as a personal insult, I'm simply following your assertion to it's logical conclusion.
Which is that your assertion is far too generalized and non-applicable to be of sufficient use to your argument.
I apologize if that was construed as a personal insult.
Wind, there is plenty of evidence for.
Gravity, there is plenty of evidence for.
There is zero evidence for evolution to be a theory.
Wind and gravity are facts.
Life coming from non-life there is no evidence for. If you can't answer this question all the other beliefs pertaining to a natural process for life called evolution are built on speculation and faith and imagination.
You can't take a living organism and claim it's product of a natural process without proving that a natural process is responsible for all life get it ? evolution should not even be considered a theory.
I am glad you corrected me it caused me to pause and clarify what i meant.
