Refuting the claims of atheists.

[paulo75]

I've been guilty of visiting atheist sites, and I get burned every time. Not because they 'win' the argument (although they always seem to think that they have), but just because of their mean nasty demeanour.

I've always said that those types of atheists are actually proving God's existence. Everything has an opposite. If God is a loving caring being, and your typical atheist is an insulting mean-spirited person, then God must exist.

I don't mean to imply that all atheists are like that, I can only speak to personal experience... and, 9 times out of 10, the atheist is a jerk.

Luckily though, I found a site that does speak in great length about dealing with atheists, and how to talk with them:

http://www.ex-atheist.com/

 

[unred typo]

I've been guilty of visiting atheist sites, and I get burned every time. Not because they 'win' the argument (although they always seem to think that they have), but just because of their mean nasty demeanour.

I've always said that those types of atheists are actually proving God's existence. Everything has an opposite. If God is a loving caring being, and your typical atheist is an insulting mean-spirited person, then God must exist.

I don't mean to imply that all atheists are like that, I can only speak to personal experience... and, 9 times out of 10, the atheist is a jerk.

Actually I have had an opposite experience. The atheists and agnostics that I encounter are generally well mannered and considerate except for a few who have a superiority complex over their supposed wealth of scientific knowledge (which is really more like an elaborate construct of well entwined educated guesses, imho ). The reason I don’t like to converse with atheistic scientists is that I am out of my element and have only second hand knowledge to tout, which becomes obsolete with every new find. About the time you come up with a good argument against something, they announce that you are way off base because they don’t even believe that anymore. I don’t have the time or inclination to keep up.

I don't even want to tell you what kind of attitudes I generally find among the fundies and hyper-calvinists :smt078 . But let's just say, love is not the word that comes to mind....
:smt021

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Hey Markt.

Didn't want you to think I have abandoned this thread. Internet has been down. I am still trying to do some reading in regards to your post regarding ERV's.

So far, from what I can tell, ERVs are set in the genome when it invades a gamete, and due to a malfunction, isnt able to fully invade it. It then leaves its signature on the DNA of the subsequent generations from the offspring that shows the type of mutation that destroyed the retrovirus before replicating.

I am not sure how this could be done any other way from my reading, other than the offspring passing it on. As far as all eating the same contaminated meat theory, I do not see how that works, because the retrovirus would still have the same exact malfunction, in the same exact way, in the gamete on each species. That is where the odds come into play. It is just too unlikely from what I have read. Makes more sense if they were distributed down through common ancestry.

Also, so far, they have found ERV relatedness in a way that reflects how we believe species to be related. For instance, if a human and orangutan share an ERV, than gorillas will have it as well.

Now if they find an ERV that doesn't fit that pattern (such as a lion and human share an ERV, but no other primate has it), than the ERV will be proven false, and maybe support what you proposed.

But so far that is not how it is. There are no ERVs that owls and frogs have, that a blue jay does not. Or an ERV that a cow and human have, but a gorilla does not.

Of course studying genes is a relatively new science and there is always a chance that something comes out tomorrow that revolutionizes every thing, but that's what makes science interesting.

Again, my understanding of genetics is very limited as you can tell, but I am trying lol.

 

[unred typo]

Hey Markt.

Didn't want you to think I have abandoned this thread. Internet has been down. I am still trying to do some reading in regards to your post regarding ERV's.

So far, from what I can tell, ERVs are set in the genome when it invades a gamete, and due to a malfunction, isnt able to fully invade it. It then leaves its signature on the DNA of the subsequent generations from the offspring that shows the type of mutation that destroyed the retrovirus before replicating.

I am not sure how this could be done any other way from my reading, other than the offspring passing it on. As far as all eating the same contaminated meat theory, I do not see how that works, because the retrovirus would still have the same exact malfunction, in the same exact way, in the gamete on each species. That is where the odds come into play. It is just too unlikely from what I have read. Makes more sense if they were distributed down through common ancestry.

Also, so far, they have found ERV relatedness in a way that reflects how we believe species to be related. For instance, if a human and orangutan share an ERV, than gorillas will have it as well.

Now if they find an ERV that doesn't fit that pattern (such as a lion and human share an ERV, but no other primate has it), than the ERV will be proven false, and maybe support what you proposed.

But so far that is not how it is. There are no ERVs that owls and frogs have, that a blue jay does not. Or an ERV that a cow and human have, but a gorilla does not.

Of course studying genes is a relatively new science and there is always a chance that something comes out tomorrow that revolutionizes every thing, but that's what makes science interesting.

Again, my understanding of genetics is very limited as you can tell, but I am trying lol.

I asked markT this already, but I'll repeat it for you: Why wouldn’t an inoculation such as the polio vaccine, that had been contaminated by an ape virus and administered from 1955–1963, cause the same pattern on DNA in the 98 million Americans, and untold others worldwide, who were immunized with this same or another contaminated serum? :-?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I asked markT this already, but I'll repeat it for you: Why wouldn’t an inoculation such as the polio vaccine, that had been contaminated by an ape virus and administered from 1955–1963, cause the same pattern on DNA in the 98 million Americans, and untold others worldwide, who were immunized with this same or another contaminated serum? :-?

From what I read, an ERV gets into the DNA by invading a sex cell, which in turn changes the DNA of the offspring born from that cell. That is how I understand it is possible for the ERV to muddy up the DNA.

I am not aware that a virus changes a persons DNA when it infects them. They just invade cells to replicate (such as HIV virus infects human T Cells).

Even if it were somehow possible to cause a ERV by a contaminated vaccine, that would not account for all the ERVs present in the other life froms, and how it follows that if an ERV is present in a species and one of its ancestors, it is also present in other species that share the same ancestor.

 

[Free]

There seems to be confusion as to just what an atheist is. Here are my 2 cents on the definition of 'atheist' and 'agnostic':

1. Atheist: a. 'Hard' atheism - there is no God (an untenable position).
b. 'Soft' atheism - God doesn't exist since there is no evidence of his existence (much closer to agnosticism).

2. Agnostic - we cannot know whether or not God exists.

 

[MarkT]

Hi Vault

I just ran across this item which talks about how retroviruses are crossing over into human populations. As you can see retroviruses are transmitted by blood; eating unclean infected animals with their lifeblood still in them. And then the retrovirus is transcribed and written into the genome. If it gets into the germline, then it's called an ERV. Now imagine a food chain. The ones at the top with fangs - chimps and gorillas - and humans, and the vegetarians - monkeys - at the bottom. The vegetarians and the flesh eaters don't live together. Why? Because the flesh eaters will eat the monkeys. That might explain why the ones at the top have more ERVs and where they got them.

A team of researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Army Health Research Center (CRESAR) in Cameroon have discovered two new retroviruses among central Africans who hunt nonhuman primates. The viruses, which have been named Human T-lymphotropic Virus types 3 and 4 (HTLV-3 and HTLV-4), belong to a genus of viruses known to spread and cause serious illness in humans. The researchers believe the findings demonstrate the need to regularly survey those human populations known to be in contact with animals for new infectious diseases emerging from animals. The study, which was first reported at the 12th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, is now published in the May 16, 2005, Online Early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“The emergence of HIV from primate origins has cost millions of lives and billions of dollars. The discoveries of HTLV-3 and HTLV-4 show that, far from being rare events, retroviruses are actively crossing into human populations,†said the study’s lead author Nathan Wolfe, DSc, assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

The research team collected and examined blood samples from more than 900 people living throughout Cameroon. All the individuals studied reported some exposure to blood and body fluids of nonhuman primates, contact mostly due to hunting and butchering of bushmeat, and in some cases to keeping primates as pets. An analysis of the blood samples determined that multiple simian viruses had crossed over from primates to infect the study participants. In two hunters, the researchers identified HTLV-3 and HTLV-4, the two previously unknown viruses.

HTLV-3 is similar to the simian virus STLV-3, and was most likely contracted through direct contact with a primate during hunting. HTLV-4 does not have a known primate counterpart and could have arisen through cross-species transmission from an animal carrying an unknown form of STLV. According to William Switzer who led the CDC laboratory team, researchers were surprised at the amount of HTLV diversity seen crossing into persons exposed to primates, as the identification of HTLV-3 and HTLV-4 essentially doubles the number of human viruses in this group. Switzer believes further research to understand the disease outcomes of these viruses and the potential for human to human transmission is also crucial.


Life is in the blood. Imagine 'life' is a person and the genome is a Home Depot store. The life of the organism goes to the store to buy the things it needs. It goes to where it expects to find what it needs. If it finds a foreign product, something that doesn't belong to it, then it tries to return it and it labels the shelf - defective. It doesn't go back to the same shelf again. So this location is marked. Over time ERVs are removed from the genome. But why is one location conserved? It could have something do with conferred immunity. I don't know. Maybe the ERV inserts itself into a familiar location; the same location that it had on the chimp genome.

The 'life' of a creature, what's in the blood, is what differentiates every cell in the body. A creature's 'life' gives the creature its form. Without 'life' we would look like a lump of protein. And the life knows what belongs to the body and what doesn't belong. You can't take a monkey's blood, for example, and give it to a man. It's a different life. That's just the physical part; the cup. Then there is the spirit of the creature; the intelligence and the ability. That's another thing which makes us different.

 

[GraceBwithU]

1. Various scientific methods have proven that the Earth was formed several billion years ago, while the Bible says the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Doesn't this mean the Bible is wrong on some things?

Hum...just a thought but let's say the 6000 year estimate of the earth is the approximate age of man's existance on the earth. This doesn't mean that the earth is only 6000 years old or even that this is the first time God has been playing around with ideas for this rock we live on. When you read Revelation you can see that He already has another plan in mind after this age runs it's course.
:D :wink:

 

[unred typo]

luckfox wrote: 1. Various scientific methods have proven that the Earth was formed several billion years ago, while the Bible says the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Doesn't this mean the Bible is wrong on some things?

I’ve read most all the various scientific methods that supposedly have proven the earth is several million years old, and it wouldn’t bother my theology at all if that were true, because my beliefs in God are not tied to the total infallibility of scripture. Anything man does can be flawed. I just happen to believe that the Bible is right and the scientific methods are faulty. No matter what method you use, there has to be faith exercised to believe in the results. Whether I look at a Greek myth, or an evolutionary theory, or a biblical account, I know that when it comes right down to the substance of what has to be believed in order for my mind and heart to accept it, faith is what the evidence ultimately relies on. I have to trust the Greek or the scientist or the biblical writer knows something I can rely on, but can‘t personally prove to myself even if I held the evidence in my hand.

In some cases, my faith is the evidence. If I were to wake up to find headlines stating that a new discovery had rocked the scientific community, and it was suddenly proven that the dating methods were all proven to be mistakenly based on X and it should have been X divided by Y , I would shrug and say, ‘OK, whatever,’ whether it brought them in line with the Bible or sent the figures further apart. I simply don’t trust them and I simply do trust what I believe in my gut is right.

 

[GraceBwithU]

I’ve been reading some of the post here. I guess it’s inevitable that any post about atheist will soon evolve into a discussion on the theory of evolution. Like unred typo said it takes faith to believe in things unproven.

Sir Author Keith – (wrote the forward to Darwin’s Origin of the Species)
“Evolution is unproved and improvable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable.â€Â

Of course one could turn this quote around. “Special creation is unproved and improvable. We believe it because the only alternative is we all got here by accident starting with some big bang, and that is totally unthinkable.â€Â

Hum…wonder what exploded? :smt017

However, the longer paleontologist dig for fossil evidence of the missing link between apes and man, the more proof that stacks up against the theory of evolution.

Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) (Harvard professor of evolution biology)
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil records persists as a trade secret of paleontology.â€Â

Come on guys. For man to have evolved from apes would have taken millions of years. So there would not be just one missing link, there would be thousands. The reason scientists haven’t found the missing link is its not missing. It simply never existed.

Of course some believe “Bigfoot†is the missing think. I wonder what happened to “Smallfootâ€Â, “Mediumfootâ€Â, and â€ÂNotsobigfootâ€Â. Guess that makes us “Extralargefootâ€Â. :D

Also if the atheist is correct that means when a Christian dies he will rot or be reincarnated just like the atheist. On the other hand, if the Christian is correct …well you know the story. :D :wink:

 

[luckyfox]

GraceBWithU: Hum...just a thought but let's say the 6000 year estimate of the earth is the approximate age of man's existance on the earth. This doesn't mean that the earth is only 6000 years old or even that this is the first time God has been playing around with ideas for this rock we live on. When you read Revelation you can see that He already has another plan in mind after this age runs it's course.

But we know that 6,000 years isn't even close to the time humans have walked the earth! In 5,000 BCE (BC), a thousand years before the supposed start of humankind, the first known painting of people wearing skis was painted, date palms were being cultivated in India, and the Egyptians came up with a time decision that divided night and day into twelve hours each. In 9,000 BCE (BC), five thousand years before the assumed date of this, flax was being harvested in Switzerland, stone houses are being built in Syria and the Greeks start importing obsidian from the island of Melos to the maninland, which leads to the conclusion that the have boats. Three thousand years before that, in 12,000, Iraqis are domesticating dogs! It would be impossible to believe that 6,000 years is the span of human history, since even writing goes back further than that and proves it.

 

[turnorburn]

GraceBWithU: Hum...just a thought but let's say the 6000 year estimate of the earth is the approximate age of man's existance on the earth. This doesn't mean that the earth is only 6000 years old or even that this is the first time God has been playing around with ideas for this rock we live on. When you read Revelation you can see that He already has another plan in mind after this age runs it's course.

What's this we stuff.... who is we? is that we me?

But we know that 6,000 years isn't even close to the time humans have walked the earth! In 5,000 BCE (BC), a thousand years before the supposed start of humankind, the first known painting of people wearing skis was painted, date palms were being cultivated in India, and the Egyptians came up with a time decision that divided night and day into twelve hours each. In 9,000 BCE (BC), five thousand years before the assumed date of this, flax was being harvested in Switzerland, stone houses are being built in Syria and the Greeks start importing obsidian from the island of Melos to the maninland, which leads to the conclusion that the have boats. Three thousand years before that, in 12,000, Iraqis are domesticating dogs! It would be impossible to believe that 6,000 years is the span of human history, since even writing goes back further than that and proves it.

 

[GraceBwithU]

But we know that 6,000 years isn't even close to the time humans have walked the earth! In 5,000 BCE (BC), a thousand years before the supposed start of humankind, the first known painting of people wearing skis was painted, date palms were being cultivated in India, and the Egyptians came up with a time decision that divided night and day into twelve hours each. In 9,000 BCE (BC), five thousand years before the assumed date of this, flax was being harvested in Switzerland, stone houses are being built in Syria and the Greeks start importing obsidian from the island of Melos to the maninland, which leads to the conclusion that the have boats. Three thousand years before that, in 12,000, Iraqis are domesticating dogs! It would be impossible to believe that 6,000 years is the span of human history, since even writing goes back further than that and proves it.

Sorry that I wasn't clear. You missed my point. I do know that the Jewish calendar year dates somewhere in the 6000's. You said 6000 years, not the Bible. The point was that it doesn't matter. The existence of the created man has nothing to do with the age of the earth. God created man in His image on the sixth day. Please note the term "day" can also be used to refer to an age. Chapter one of Genesis is written the way it was revealed to Moses. He wrote the book around 1450 B.C. Remember, man did not witness the creation. The order of creation is correct, but the details are not clear, though the point was still well made.

Let’s say they six day creation was actually six days. Think about these questions.
How long did Adam live alone before Eve?
How long did they live in the garden before the fall? (no one was to die until after that happened)
When did they begin keeping track of there ages?
Was age really important since no one had yet died?
How accurate where the records of the ages of the early man?
How important is it really that the ages were accurate? The genealogy is what mattered most, (who begot who).
Did people lie about their age the way many people do now? :D
After living for hundreds of years, were they even certain of their age?
:smt017
:D

 

[turnorburn]

:smt006 Sitting here reading these posts I had a feeling come over me, realizing how limited
I am. God has no such limits, take for example the universe, they say the universe goes on
without end. Now put this picture in your mind, you are invited to watch him create the
universe. How long do you think it took, beginning with the first planet and ending with the
last planet. Now imagine as you sit there your watching him in anticipation,
you blink, and in that instant when your eyelids open there is the finished product! This was just a thought that came to me and I felt I should share it with everyone. The last time this happened
I thought, how would you keep track of every human being and know how many hairs each person had
on their heads. "He is indeed an Awesome God" give him all the glory, Hallelujah!

And Amen

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Grace: However, the longer paleontologist dig for fossil evidence of the missing link between apes and man, the more proof that stacks up against the theory of evolution.

That is not accurate.

Also, remember that micro-biology and genetics are key evidences for evolution today. Fields that were unknown to Darwin.

Grace: Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) (Harvard professor of evolution biology)
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil records persists as a trade secret of paleontology.â€Â

Stephen Gould’s writings were misused by creationists as evidence against evolution. He never wanted to imply that evolution was unscientific. He dedicated his life’s work towards evolution.

He was noting that there are gaps between some species, but he also notes in the same essay that the transition between major groups is well documented.

Grace:
Come on guys. For man to have evolved from apes would have taken millions of years. So there would not be just one missing link, there would be thousands. The reason scientists haven’t found the missing link is its not missing. It simply never existed.

The “missing link†idea really dates from early Darwin times and is antiquated and confusing when used in current context.

Grace:
Of course some believe “Bigfoot†is the missing think. I wonder what happened to “Smallfootâ€Â, “Mediumfootâ€Â, and â€ÂNotsobigfootâ€Â. Guess that makes us “Extralargefootâ€Â.

I highly doubt many in the scientific community even believe in bigfoot, much less for it to be a evidence for a transition from primate to man.

Grace:
Also if the atheist is correct that means when a Christian dies he will rot or be reincarnated just like the atheist. On the other hand, if the Christian is correct …well you know the story.

If that is anyone’s reasoning in believing in Christ, than according to the bible, they will fare no better than the atheist. They will both be joining hands in hell.

Christ is not a get out of hell free card.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Grace: However, the longer paleontologist dig for fossil evidence of the missing link between apes and man, the more proof that stacks up against the theory of evolution.

That is not accurate.

Also, remember that micro-biology and genetics are key evidences for evolution today. Fields that were unknown to Darwin.

[quote:d0a9f] Grace: Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) (Harvard professor of evolution biology)
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil records persists as a trade secret of paleontology.â€Â

Stephen Gould’s writings were misused by creationists as evidence against evolution. He never wanted to imply that evolution was unscientific. He dedicated his life’s work towards evolution.

He was noting that there are gaps between some species, but he also notes in the same essay that the transition between major groups is well documented.

Grace:
Come on guys. For man to have evolved from apes would have taken millions of years. So there would not be just one missing link, there would be thousands. The reason scientists haven’t found the missing link is its not missing. It simply never existed.

The “missing link†idea really dates from early Darwin times and is antiquated and confusing when used in current context.

Grace:
Of course some believe “Bigfoot†is the missing think. I wonder what happened to “Smallfootâ€Â, “Mediumfootâ€Â, and â€ÂNotsobigfootâ€Â. Guess that makes us “Extralargefootâ€Â.

I highly doubt many in the scientific community even believe in bigfoot, much less for it to be a evidence for a transition from primate to man.

Grace:
Also if the atheist is correct that means when a Christian dies he will rot or be reincarnated just like the atheist. On the other hand, if the Christian is correct …well you know the story.

If that is anyone’s reasoning in believing in Christ, than according to the bible, they will fare no better than the atheist. They will both be joining hands in hell.

Christ is not a get out of hell free card.[/quote:d0a9f]

I expected you to have comments like these. :smt043

The bigfoot thing was a joke.

I've read most of your comments here. They are very funny. If you don't believe in creation, take your argument to someone else. You are preaching it to the wrong person. You are entitled to your opinion. I have mine.

Man evolving from apes? :D :-D : :smt043 :silly:
Have some : with your fantasy film.
Please note...My post was a general post to the thread. I don't intend on debating this with you. It is obvious you will not be swayed and that's OK.
:wink:

 

[turnorburn]

Me thinks you need a new outlook on life :

turnorburn

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Grace: However, the longer paleontologist dig for fossil evidence of the missing link between apes and man, the more proof that stacks up against the theory of evolution.

That is not accurate.

Also, remember that micro-biology and genetics are key evidences for evolution today. Fields that were unknown to Darwin.

[quote:ecf71] Grace: Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) (Harvard professor of evolution biology)
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil records persists as a trade secret of paleontology.â€Â

Stephen Gould’s writings were misused by creationists as evidence against evolution. He never wanted to imply that evolution was unscientific. He dedicated his life’s work towards evolution.

He was noting that there are gaps between some species, but he also notes in the same essay that the transition between major groups is well documented.

[quote:ecf71] Grace:
Come on guys. For man to have evolved from apes would have taken millions of years. So there would not be just one missing link, there would be thousands. The reason scientists haven’t found the missing link is its not missing. It simply never existed.

The “missing link†idea really dates from early Darwin times and is antiquated and confusing when used in current context.

Grace:
Of course some believe “Bigfoot†is the missing think. I wonder what happened to “Smallfootâ€Â, “Mediumfootâ€Â, and â€ÂNotsobigfootâ€Â. Guess that makes us “Extralargefootâ€Â.

I highly doubt many in the scientific community even believe in bigfoot, much less for it to be a evidence for a transition from primate to man.

Grace:
Also if the atheist is correct that means when a Christian dies he will rot or be reincarnated just like the atheist. On the other hand, if the Christian is correct …well you know the story.

If that is anyone’s reasoning in believing in Christ, than according to the bible, they will fare no better than the atheist. They will both be joining hands in hell.

Christ is not a get out of hell free card.[/quote:ecf71]

I expected you to have comments like these. :smt043

The bigfoot thing was a joke.

I've read most of your comments here. They are very funny. If you don't believe in creation, take your argument to someone else. You are preaching it to the wrong person. You are entitled to your opinion. I have mine.

Man evolving from apes? :D :-D : :smt043 :silly:
Have some : with your fantasy film.
Please note...My post was a general post to the thread. I don't intend on debating this with you. It is obvious you will not be swayed and that's OK.
:wink:[/quote:ecf71]

Hmm. I read so many odd things sometimes when people argue against evolution, its hard to determine what is a joke and whats being serious.

I am not arguing for you to believe in evolution. Just showing the error in your statements. If you do not won't the errors in your statements retorted against, don't post erroneous statements.

Is it necessary to mock with all of the laughing faces? I do not mock you.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Me thinks you need a new outlook on life :

turnorburn

That coming from someone who's name is turnorburn......

Someone who I have seen consistently take light of the belief someone will rot in hell.....

 

[VaultZero4Me]

btw Grace, I do not understand why you act as if I came on the thread and spear headed a debate for evolution. My only point initially was for the poster to not use the toronadoe makes a 747 example. She wouldn't be taken seriously in her endeavor.