Why do the anti God crowd attack the bible ?

[AllieBaba]

So every person of faith was raised a person of faith?

Dr. Collins' parents were agnostics.

My own were atheists.

So much for that theory, retard.

 

[cbirch2]

So every person of faith was raised a person of faith?

Dr. Collins' parents were agnostics.

My own were atheists.

So much for that theory, retard.

No actually according to Collins his parents were "nominal christians". He says he was atheist by graduate school, but turned to christ when his parents died. Thats very noble, thats great for him. I have no problem with people like that. Its people that think the literal word of the bible is truth that annoy me, particularly the old testament. Collins is a reasonable person, you are not.

How is it that you told me about this person and i know more about him than you do already? Come on.

 

[Yoda]

Outside of those few idiots in N.Y. I've only been witness to "Christians" attacking atheist. I, personally, cannot believe and if I'm wrong, then it's my price to pay. Thorough all of our conversations (and this post as well), all of you're evidence has been interpretation and circular logic.

The bible is correct because God says so.
God is always correct because the bible says so.

Do you not see it? Every "evidence" you have presented has been nothing but YOUR interpretation of scripture. You denounce science, but hold it as a trophy if it fits your religious view and I see that as completely self-serving. Much like the prophecies. Did God fulfill them, or did man fulfill them for scriptures sake?

If you truly have faith in God (and I commend you for sticking to your guns and what you believe), then why do you have to defend and/or justify it? Isn't your love for Christ good enough? Isn't the fact that you try to justify and defend your love for God is an act of contradiction of faith? Nothing I or anyone else can say should ever have an impact on your relationship with Jesus and by the same token, there is nothing in scripture that will suddenly kindle that relationship with those who don't believe.

Why do you keep torturing yourself with such issues of others disbelief?

Your missing the point. Thats not why they do it. They do it because they were raised to believe all this non sense. Theyve never once seen anything in the real world that would confirm their psychotic beliefs so they have to come here to argue. The more we argue the more it reinforces their belief because everytime we say something smart and they dont know what were talking about they just resort to "lol brainwashed fool think hes spouting facts" so that they dont have to respond with anything remotely educated.

On the other hand, i found allie in politics and followed him here because hes just so damn fun.

I have had discussions with youwerecreated in the past and that was my point to him. I think that youwerecreated is very educated. I'd never look down on someone's belief. If it helps them to be a better person in life, then so be it. I just hate it when the "Christians" call out atheist for not sharing that belief and then try to play the victim and claim that they were attacked. Disagreement isn't an attack.

I do agree with you that the vast majority was brainwashed from birth to believe in religion and then later in life when all signs point to the opposite, they try whatever means to justify their own belief which unwittingly, their logic becomes circular. I cannot say, however that they have never seen anything in the real world that confirms their faith for them. That is interpretation and I do not have vision through their eyes.

They see through faith, I do not. I can respect someone's faith, I'm just asking them to realize that not everyone shares their faith and give the same respect in kind.

 

[cbirch2]

Id mostly like to deal in fact. They like to counter fact with silly little thought experiments like 'dogs only give birth to dogs', which is probably about the stupidest argument ive ever heard. Only someone that truly doesnt understand evolution would make that argument.

Whats your explanation for the millions of extinct species of primitive life? Were the fossils planted there by the devil?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lol i feel like the problem with this debate is that you expect a species to diverge within your life time. Like the dog will give birth to the super dog or something.

Where in evolutionary theory does it say that speciation occurs over such a small span of time.

I am having a problem with my internet service I am replying off my phone and I don't like to,this smart phone has a mind of It's own. This will be my only response until the internet service is working again. I don't expect macro evolution to occur no matter how much time is given. It's very simple to prove my point. Offspring gain all the genes from each parent,not all the genes are used. That's why sometimes a child will only resemble one parent. What happens to the unused information ? We know that when reproducing whether asexual or sexual that the parent can only produce from the information available. That is why I say over each generation,the gene pool gets smaller and smaller. How do we know this because the boxer only has the genetic information to produce a boxer. The mutt only has genetic information to produce a dog. So in the case of the Kurt they have such a diverse amount of genetic information that there is no telling what the offspring will look like Genetics are reliable that is how so many purebreds were created. Once they got what they wanted they only breed to other purebreds. In humans if the gene pool or population was interracial from all races of mankind our gene pool would be like the mutt having a much larger gene pool. If all races were isolated from each other the gene pool would become smaller and there would only be enough genetic information to reproduce that race. So the human only has the genetic information to produce a human a dog only has the genetic information to produce a dog. The mutation arguement please see Dr. Spetners arguement as to why the mutation arguement is not viable and respond. Like it or not this is what the observable evidence supports and the bible says ten times in genesis that kinds only bring forth after their kinds.

Each gamete only contains half the information of each parent!

"Offspring gain all the genes from each parent,not all the genes are used."

No. The offspring receive 23 chromosomes from each parent, thats half. any given sperm/egg cell (gamete) does not contain a full genetic copy of the parents DNA, it contains half. Therefore your entire argument that the gene pool gets smaller is false, an organism uses all the DNA its created with.

Genetic arent reliable, they work with probability. If you dont know that you dont know anything about genetics. Organisms inherit genotypes from their parents on a probabilistic basis because each parent only contributes a random half of its DNA to the offspring.

Your whole argument hinges on the idea that each parent contributes all of its DNA to the offspring and that offspring only uses the parts it needs. Thats totally wrong. Each parent only contributes half of its DNA and the offspring uses all of it. Your wrong.

Nice technical words you are using and making the arguement seem confusing ,if what you say is true how do you explain the child sometimes exactly like one parent or even acting like that one parent. Think man,its so easy to shoot holes in your arguement because it goes against logic and more importantly the evidence i have far more evidence sporting my theory then you do. Now are you gonna continue to dodge the good Dr. Spetner ? I'm still waiting for you to provide and identify that beneficial mutation that took over a gene pool. Please quit saying I don't know what I'm talking about ,because I have demonstrated how the evidence supports my view. Stop with the smoke and mirrors ,will you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where is the proof that it ever created a new species?

The title of the article is new species retard. They have the time line that the ancestor traveled from southern California to the Colorado river. The populations became isolated on adapted to the specific environment of each side of the river.

The proof its a separate species is that its genetics have diversified enough to be considered a separate species. Or in your mind did god create the definition of the word species as well?

O wait...i think we already know the answer to that...

"Alliebaba defines gods creation based on how biologists classify animals..."

Do you think people will take you serious using terms like retard. I'm impressed!

 

[cbirch2]

I am having a problem with my internet service I am replying off my phone and I don't like to,this smart phone has a mind of It's own. This will be my only response until the internet service is working again. I don't expect macro evolution to occur no matter how much time is given. It's very simple to prove my point. Offspring gain all the genes from each parent,not all the genes are used. That's why sometimes a child will only resemble one parent. What happens to the unused information ? We know that when reproducing whether asexual or sexual that the parent can only produce from the information available. That is why I say over each generation,the gene pool gets smaller and smaller. How do we know this because the boxer only has the genetic information to produce a boxer. The mutt only has genetic information to produce a dog. So in the case of the Kurt they have such a diverse amount of genetic information that there is no telling what the offspring will look like Genetics are reliable that is how so many purebreds were created. Once they got what they wanted they only breed to other purebreds. In humans if the gene pool or population was interracial from all races of mankind our gene pool would be like the mutt having a much larger gene pool. If all races were isolated from each other the gene pool would become smaller and there would only be enough genetic information to reproduce that race. So the human only has the genetic information to produce a human a dog only has the genetic information to produce a dog. The mutation arguement please see Dr. Spetners arguement as to why the mutation arguement is not viable and respond. Like it or not this is what the observable evidence supports and the bible says ten times in genesis that kinds only bring forth after their kinds.

Each gamete only contains half the information of each parent!

"Offspring gain all the genes from each parent,not all the genes are used."

No. The offspring receive 23 chromosomes from each parent, thats half. any given sperm/egg cell (gamete) does not contain a full genetic copy of the parents DNA, it contains half. Therefore your entire argument that the gene pool gets smaller is false, an organism uses all the DNA its created with.

Genetic arent reliable, they work with probability. If you dont know that you dont know anything about genetics. Organisms inherit genotypes from their parents on a probabilistic basis because each parent only contributes a random half of its DNA to the offspring.

Your whole argument hinges on the idea that each parent contributes all of its DNA to the offspring and that offspring only uses the parts it needs. Thats totally wrong. Each parent only contributes half of its DNA and the offspring uses all of it. Your wrong.

Nice technical words you are using and making the arguement seem confusing ,if what you say is true how do you explain the child sometimes exactly like one parent or even acting like that one parent. Think man,its so easy to shoot holes in your arguement because it goes against logic and more importantly the evidence i have far more evidence sporting my theory then you do. Now are you gonna continue to dodge the good Dr. Spetner ? I'm still waiting for you to provide and identify that beneficial mutation that took over a gene pool. Please quit saying I don't know what I'm talking about ,because I have demonstrated how the evidence supports my view. Stop with the smoke and mirrors ,will you.

LMAO ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOUR JUST CONFIRMED MY LAST POST. We say things you dont understand so you just think were being confusing on purpose. wow. im just trying to explain to you how sexual reproduction works. For one, no one generation could possibly provide evidence against evolution. One creature looking like the parent doesnt mean anything at all. Havent you ever heard of gregor mendel? The genes you inherent (genotype) result in a specific trait (phenotype). The genes any single organism inherit from two parents is random, but the total probability of any trait over several offspring and several generation has a predicable probability. This is like highschool biology here.

What evidence do you have supporting your theory? You have none. Didnt you see my bacteria example about a beneficial gene? I cant even believe you dont think a beneficial gene can take over a gene pool, thats such a basic concept.

 

[Yoda]

Id mostly like to deal in fact. They like to counter fact with silly little thought experiments like 'dogs only give birth to dogs', which is probably about the stupidest argument ive ever heard. Only someone that truly doesnt understand evolution would make that argument.

Whats your explanation for the millions of extinct species of primitive life? Were the fossils planted there by the devil?

Is this in response to me or youwerecreated? I'm no scientist, but in today's world, a K9 would only give birth to a K9. What's missing in the logic is that what we call a dog today may evolve into a different creature 200 million years from today, much like it was different 200 million year ago. Religion doesn't have room for that line of thought. The bible scholars think that the eath is, what? 5-6 thousand years old? Evolution is talking billions of years. With that kind of discrepancy, you would have to consider the possibility that religion maybe wrong. If your point is that they were brainwashed from birth, then that consideration would be against their "nature" and to consider such possibility would be blasphemy to some .

 

[Youwerecreated]

Each gamete only contains half the information of each parent!

"Offspring gain all the genes from each parent,not all the genes are used."

No. The offspring receive 23 chromosomes from each parent, thats half. any given sperm/egg cell (gamete) does not contain a full genetic copy of the parents DNA, it contains half. Therefore your entire argument that the gene pool gets smaller is false, an organism uses all the DNA its created with.

Genetic arent reliable, they work with probability. If you dont know that you dont know anything about genetics. Organisms inherit genotypes from their parents on a probabilistic basis because each parent only contributes a random half of its DNA to the offspring.

Your whole argument hinges on the idea that each parent contributes all of its DNA to the offspring and that offspring only uses the parts it needs. Thats totally wrong. Each parent only contributes half of its DNA and the offspring uses all of it. Your wrong.

Nice technical words you are using and making the arguement seem confusing ,if what you say is true how do you explain the child sometimes exactly like one parent or even acting like that one parent. Think man,its so easy to shoot holes in your arguement because it goes against logic and more importantly the evidence i have far more evidence sporting my theory then you do. Now are you gonna continue to dodge the good Dr. Spetner ? I'm still waiting for you to provide and identify that beneficial mutation that took over a gene pool. Please quit saying I don't know what I'm talking about ,because I have demonstrated how the evidence supports my view. Stop with the smoke and mirrors ,will you.

LMAO ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOUR JUST CONFIRMED MY LAST POST. We say things you dont understand so you just think were being confusing on purpose. wow. im just trying to explain to you how sexual reproduction works. For one, no one generation could possibly provide evidence against evolution. One creature looking like the parent doesnt mean anything at all. Havent you ever heard of gregor mendel? The genes you inherent (genotype) result in a specific trait (phenotype). The genes any single organism inherit from two parents is random, but the total probability of any trait over several offspring and several generation has a predicable probability. This is like highschool biology here.

What evidence do you have supporting your theory? You have none. Didnt you see my bacteria example about a beneficial gene? I cant even believe you dont think a beneficial gene can take over a gene pool, thats such a basic concept.

Of course I've heard of him and he is why your theory is a fraud. Look I understand what you are saying but a lot of the readers here will not. Is impressive to you that you can cite the theory and It's terms ? I'll give you credit for that,but you don't know the difference between theory and facts nor do you know the difference between observed evidence and what you read in a book. All you know is what you either read on the net or a textbook you have never don't research have you ? If do what have you worked on ? Please don't give me your class room lab. Bottom line you still refuse to respond to Spetners article , why ? Like I said you come with fancy explanations that are not evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Each gamete only contains half the information of each parent!

"Offspring gain all the genes from each parent,not all the genes are used."

No. The offspring receive 23 chromosomes from each parent, thats half. any given sperm/egg cell (gamete) does not contain a full genetic copy of the parents DNA, it contains half. Therefore your entire argument that the gene pool gets smaller is false, an organism uses all the DNA its created with.

Genetic arent reliable, they work with probability. If you dont know that you dont know anything about genetics. Organisms inherit genotypes from their parents on a probabilistic basis because each parent only contributes a random half of its DNA to the offspring.

Your whole argument hinges on the idea that each parent contributes all of its DNA to the offspring and that offspring only uses the parts it needs. Thats totally wrong. Each parent only contributes half of its DNA and the offspring uses all of it. Your wrong.

Nice technical words you are using and making the arguement seem confusing ,if what you say is true how do you explain the child sometimes exactly like one parent or even acting like that one parent. Think man,its so easy to shoot holes in your arguement because it goes against logic and more importantly the evidence i have far more evidence sporting my theory then you do. Now are you gonna continue to dodge the good Dr. Spetner ? I'm still waiting for you to provide and identify that beneficial mutation that took over a gene pool. Please quit saying I don't know what I'm talking about ,because I have demonstrated how the evidence supports my view. Stop with the smoke and mirrors ,will you.

LMAO ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOUR JUST CONFIRMED MY LAST POST. We say things you dont understand so you just think were being confusing on purpose. wow. im just trying to explain to you how sexual reproduction works. For one, no one generation could possibly provide evidence against evolution. One creature looking like the parent doesnt mean anything at all. Havent you ever heard of gregor mendel? The genes you inherent (genotype) result in a specific trait (phenotype). The genes any single organism inherit from two parents is random, but the total probability of any trait over several offspring and several generation has a predicable probability. This is like highschool biology here.

What evidence do you have supporting your theory? You have none. Didnt you see my bacteria example about a beneficial gene? I cant even believe you dont think a beneficial gene can take over a gene pool, thats such a basic concept.

Oh and by the way,the explanations of the dogs was so simple and supported by evidence but it either went over your head or it made so much sense you tried to mock it. Let me tell how reliable genetics are,we own a grey quarter horse stud that is guaranteed to produce the color grey in all offspring he is retired now but he did that for over 20 years. So once quit being foolish and use some reason. Would you like to compare credentials and if not then quit saying I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know......if you want to see examples of evolution, look no farther than our current crops which are drought and disease resistant, as well as the way we've altered our livestock.

Yes, the evoluiton of those animals was forced, but it also proves the point.

 

[AllieBaba]

Good lord, you guys just never let up...

Where has anyone denied evolution exists?

The question is, does it explain individual, distinct species.

The answer is NO.

 

[AllieBaba]

For the 18th time we know species can be altered, anyone who looks at dogs, cat, horses KNOWS that.

Quit arguing a point as if it's a real point.

So irritating.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I didn't read your book (post) but from what I have observed, it is not the Bible itself that non-Christians have a problem with.
It is the acceptance and specific interpretations of some scriptures of the Bible and using them as a tool to further political agendas. Oh, and all the violence, prejudice & judgmentalism, hatred etc... that are also justified or at least rationalized in the name of God / Jesus.

 

[cbirch2]

Nice technical words you are using and making the arguement seem confusing ,if what you say is true how do you explain the child sometimes exactly like one parent or even acting like that one parent. Think man,its so easy to shoot holes in your arguement because it goes against logic and more importantly the evidence i have far more evidence sporting my theory then you do. Now are you gonna continue to dodge the good Dr. Spetner ? I'm still waiting for you to provide and identify that beneficial mutation that took over a gene pool. Please quit saying I don't know what I'm talking about ,because I have demonstrated how the evidence supports my view. Stop with the smoke and mirrors ,will you.

LMAO ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOUR JUST CONFIRMED MY LAST POST. We say things you dont understand so you just think were being confusing on purpose. wow. im just trying to explain to you how sexual reproduction works. For one, no one generation could possibly provide evidence against evolution. One creature looking like the parent doesnt mean anything at all. Havent you ever heard of gregor mendel? The genes you inherent (genotype) result in a specific trait (phenotype). The genes any single organism inherit from two parents is random, but the total probability of any trait over several offspring and several generation has a predicable probability. This is like highschool biology here.

What evidence do you have supporting your theory? You have none. Didnt you see my bacteria example about a beneficial gene? I cant even believe you dont think a beneficial gene can take over a gene pool, thats such a basic concept.

Oh and by the way,the explanations of the dogs was so simple and supported by evidence but it either went over your head or it made so much sense you tried to mock it. Let me tell how reliable genetics are,we own a grey quarter horse stud that is guaranteed to produce the color grey in all offspring he is retired now but he did that for over 20 years. So once quit being foolish and use some reason. Would you like to compare credentials and if not then quit saying I don't know what I'm talking about.

What does that have to do with anything? All that means is the genotype of the horse is homozygous dominant and that the gene that causes the gray trait is dominant not recessive. How in any way does that disprove evolution? This is simple Mendelian genetics here. Come on.

The evolution of family canidae is a perfect example of evolution. Dogs, wild dogs, coyotes, foxes, all of these things are different species. Theyre all clearly related.

Are you trying to say that since all dogs are of the same species evolution is somehow false? Idk about that....Thats just an example of diversification.

 

[cbirch2]

For the 18th time we know species can be altered, anyone who looks at dogs, cat, horses KNOWS that.

Quit arguing a point as if it's a real point.

So irritating.

You havent proved that at all you tard. And while youve been not proving that you've been ignoring every transitional fossil weve pointed out (austrolipithicus, homo habilis, homo erectus, eryops, the tortoises, etc, etc, etc).

Whats your evidence that speciation cant happen? Considering every biologist disagrees with you.

Just because you state it over and over doesnt make it fact. I dont think creationists get that.

 

[AllieBaba]

I didn't read your book (post) but from what I have observed, it is not the Bible itself that non-Christians have a problem with.
It is the acceptance and specific interpretations of some scriptures of the Bible and using them as a tool to further political agendas. Oh, and all the violence, prejudice & judgmentalism, hatred etc... that are also justified or at least rationalized in the name of God / Jesus.

Also in the name of science.

So? Why do they attack the bible if their beef is with humankind in general?

 

[AllieBaba]

LMAO ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOUR JUST CONFIRMED MY LAST POST. We say things you dont understand so you just think were being confusing on purpose. wow. im just trying to explain to you how sexual reproduction works. For one, no one generation could possibly provide evidence against evolution. One creature looking like the parent doesnt mean anything at all. Havent you ever heard of gregor mendel? The genes you inherent (genotype) result in a specific trait (phenotype). The genes any single organism inherit from two parents is random, but the total probability of any trait over several offspring and several generation has a predicable probability. This is like highschool biology here.

What evidence do you have supporting your theory? You have none. Didnt you see my bacteria example about a beneficial gene? I cant even believe you dont think a beneficial gene can take over a gene pool, thats such a basic concept.

Oh and by the way,the explanations of the dogs was so simple and supported by evidence but it either went over your head or it made so much sense you tried to mock it. Let me tell how reliable genetics are,we own a grey quarter horse stud that is guaranteed to produce the color grey in all offspring he is retired now but he did that for over 20 years. So once quit being foolish and use some reason. Would you like to compare credentials and if not then quit saying I don't know what I'm talking about.

What does that have to do with anything? All that means is the genotype of the horse is homozygous dominant and that the gene that causes the gray trait is dominant not recessive. How in any way does that disprove evolution? This is simple Mendelian genetics here. Come on.

The evolution of family canidae is a perfect example of evolution. Dogs, wild dogs, coyotes, foxes, all of these things are different species. Theyre all clearly related.

Are you trying to say that since all dogs are of the same species evolution is somehow false? Idk about that....Thats just an example of diversification.

No, he's saying exactly what I said. That evolution in now way explains diverse species. It just explains diversity within a species.

How many different ways do you have to have it presented to you before you quit pretending anyone has said anything like what you are apparently arguing against?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Why did all the animals on the Galapagos evolve different on different islands?

 

[AllieBaba]

And while it's extremely reassuring that you can learn, I would like to point out that all that claptrap you just rattled off about dogs you just learned in this thread, over the last couple of days. And you learned most of it from me. When you started you thought dogs and wolves were different species.

If you can continue to learn maybe you'll earn a pos rep someday...