Atheist in a Christian Den.

[jasoncran]

as the jews feel about christ is the same way i feel when someone mentions athiests.

leary, way to leary. i know whom jeff is talking about. he isnt making a generalistion. hes not one to do that.

 

[abigail]

:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny

This is hilerious, but nope. Not becoming a Christian until I am convinced of the truth in its doctrines.

well when you decide to follow Christ, message me and i would be glad to pray with you.. God Bless

 

[Tri Unity]

:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny

This is hilerious, but nope. Not becoming a Christian until I am convinced of the truth in its doctrines.

A book recommendation to you ATO: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, by Richard Milton. Milton is not a Christian; he is just looking objectively at the evidence for evolution. If you look at the evidence without the fuzzy glasses, you will see that you require more faith for evolution than you do for a creator. Most people are not really interested in looking at the evidence; they treat "ideologies" like a game of tennis; they play for the game, not for the win. Which one are you Ato? Do you just play for the game's sake, or are you really looking for answers?

 

[Atothetheist]

A book recommendation to you ATO: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, by Richard Milton. Milton is not a Christian; he is just looking objectively at the evidence for evolution. If you look at the evidence without the fuzzy glasses, you will see that you require more faith for evolution than you do for a creator. Most people are not really interested in looking at the evidence; they treat "ideologies" like a game of tennis; they play for the game, not for the win. Which one are you Ato? Do you just play for the game's sake, or are you really looking for answers?

Sorry,but I study evolution everyday.

It is my future career choice. and I can personally say, it makes sense, is supported, and it is foolish to go against it.

Just because a person isn't christian won't make them a reliable source.

I am in it to learn the truth of Christianity, not creation.

Creation has already been discreditted and laughed at in the scientific community.

There is no debate anymore.

 

[Tri Unity]

Creation has already been discreditted and laughed at in the scientific community.

The scientific community is laughed at by God. I study science too. It is also something to become my career choice, and I am very aware of the fuzzy glasses that are used by these scoffers. Pat yourself on the back as much as you want; it will never change the fact of intelligent design.

 

[Atothetheist]

The scientific community is laughed at by God. I study science too. It is also something to become my career choice, and I am very aware of the fuzzy glasses that are used by these scoffers. Pat yourself on the back as much as you want; it will never change the fact of intelligent design, player.

Not fact, hypothesis, and a VERY bad one at that.

Since you have yet to establish a God, and that this God is laughing at the scienctific community, I am guessing you weren't stating the first sentence with any type of seriousness.

Sorry, but in creation, or intelligent design, verses evolution through natural selection, I know I am the winner.

 

[Tri Unity]

Sorry, but in creation, or intelligent design, verses evolution through natural selection, I know I am the winner.

I am not going to argue this with you; it appears you have ulterior motives in being here. God speed.

 

[joethemechanic]

So if God didn't put everything here, who or what did?

 

[Atothetheist]

So if God didn't put everything here, who or what did?

I can't comment definitively, but I suspect natural laws and reactions.

Just because things have a beginning, doesn't mean it was caused with intent.

 

[Grazer]

I can't comment definitively, but I suspect natural laws and reactions.

Just because things have a beginning, doesn't mean it was caused with intent.

But then that just raises the further (and inevitable) question of where did the laws come from? Laws don't cause anything, they are our explanations of what we observe. The laws of motion never caused a snooker ball to move across a snooker table on their own. The theory of evolution does not explain the origins of life, it has to presuppose the existence of a self replicating cell. It offers no explanation as to where that cell came from.

What else in this universe has a beginning but has no intent, no creator behind it?

 

[Atothetheist]

But then that just raises the further (and inevitable) question of where did the laws come from? Laws don't cause anything, they are our explanations of what we observe. The laws of motion never caused a snooker ball to move across a snooker table on their own. The theory of evolution does not explain the origins of life, it has to presuppose the existence of a self replicating cell. It offers no explanation as to where that cell came from.

What else in this universe has a beginning but has no intent, no creator behind it?

I could cause something I never intended, if I place a ball, on a hill, and it rolls down, and is evidence of the theory of gravity acting on the ball, it was never my intention to move the ball down hill, but it did so anyways based on the law. And if that ball hits another, which rolls downhill, was that caused with intent?

The laws came from nothing... Read lLawrence Kruass.

 

[cleanfreak]

I could cause something I never intended, if I place a ball, on a hill, and it rolls down, and is evidence of the theory of gravity acting on the ball, it was never my intention to move the ball down hill, but it did so anyways based on the law. And if that ball hits another, which rolls downhill, was that caused with intent?

The laws came from nothing... Read lLawrence Kruass.

methinks you placed the ball in the first place :nod

 

[Grazer]

I could cause something I never intended, if I place a ball, on a hill, and it rolls down, and is evidence of the theory of gravity acting on the ball, it was never my intention to move the ball down hill, but it did so anyways based on the law. And if that ball hits another, which rolls downhill, was that caused with intent?

The laws came from nothing... Read lLawrence Kruass.

You placed the rock in the first place, that's the point. Without you, that rock goes no where. Without gravity, that ball goes no where. You need both in your example. But that doesn't answered my question. What else in this universe has a beginning but has no intent, no creator behind it?

Laws come from nothing? Yeah, I think I will read Lawrence Kruass but I think Stephen Hawking said something similar. John Lennox shows the logical inconstancies in their arguments:

[video=youtube;222ihLZlujQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=222ihLZlujQ[/video]

Hawking: "Because we have a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing" But again, no explanation of where the laws come from. He's presupposing its existence to account for its existence.

 

[Atothetheist]

You placed the rock in the first place, that's the point. Without you, that rock goes no where. Without gravity, that ball goes no where. You need both in your example. But that doesn't answered my question. What else in this universe has a beginning but has no intent, no creator behind it?

Laws come from nothing? Yeah, I think I will read Lawrence Kruass but I think Stephen Hawking said something similar. John Lennox shows the logical inconstancies in their arguments:

[video=youtube;222ihLZlujQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=222ihLZlujQ[/video]

John Lennox, is not in the same field as them, nor shoulf be compared to them.

Its like saying " Albert Einstein said the same thing, but his mailman pointed out flaws"

Stars, stars die ( in a Super Nova) without intent. They do not intend to die, they just do.

Also, the forming of comit tails are caused without intent.

Lawrence Krauss deals with how the laws come into existance.

 

[Grazer]

John Lennox, is not in the same field as them, nor shoulf be compared to them.

Its like saying " Albert Einstein said the same thing, but his mailman pointed out flaws"

Stars, stars die ( in a Super Nova) without intent. They do not intend to die, they just do.

And John Lennox doesn't argue with their science but what they claim to derive from their science. Nonsense remains nonsense even when said by world famous physicists (to quote John Lennox) I recommend watching the video, it is long but Lennox makes some good points.

Stars die? What's that got to do with the question about creation? It's a false analogy.

 

[Atothetheist]

And John Lennox doesn't argue with their science but what they claim to derive from their science. Nonsense remains nonsense even when said by world famous physicists (to quote John Lennox) I recommend watching the video, it is long but Lennox makes some good points.

Stars die? What's that got to do with the question about creation? It's a false analogy.

Stars and Galexies were created without INTENT. So meteors, and so is sand.

 

[Atothetheist]

And John Lennox doesn't argue with their science but what they claim to derive from their science. Nonsense remains nonsense even when said by world famous physicists (to quote John Lennox) I recommend watching the video, it is long but Lennox makes some good points.

Stars die? What's that got to do with the question about creation? It's a false analogy.

What I am trying to get you to see, is the fact that he might not understand WHY stephen Hawking made the claim.

 

[cleanfreak]

Stars and Galexies were created without INTENT. So meteors, and so is sand.

proof?

 

[Grazer]

What I am trying to get you to see, is the fact that he might not understand WHY stephen Hawking made the claim.

Well since you have not heard John Lennox's full argument, that statement is pure speculation.

As for stars and galaxies, we've just come back full circle.

 

[Atothetheist]

proof?

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=157

Sand is formed by waves eroding pebbles.

Planets are formed by masses of matter, and the gravity cursing the matter into a ball.