An unorthodox belief in God.

[Mister Agenda]

I backed it up with a fact, its a fact that evolution cannot create anything!

At this point, I know you are incapable of comprehending this fact, but I feel it still must be said: calling something a fact doesn't make it a fact. Demonstrating that it is a fact does.

You are dismissing that fact.

If you're saying evolution doesn't create anything ex nihilo, that's hardly news. If that's what you're saying, we're not dismissing it, it's something so trivially obvious only a moron would think it needs pointing out.

Creation requires creator, new life requires that it came from something already alive!

Argument from etymology is a fallacy: that we use the term 'creation' for 'existence' does not imply a creator. Only evidence for a creator would. And that the simplest form of life couldn't come from non-life over the course of hundreds of millions of years of complex chemistry is definitely NOT a fact.

Intelligence breeds intelligence. Humans give birth to humans.

No kidding. If a nonhuman gave birth to a human, that would not be evolution. Your understanding of evolution is so misinformed that you think it involves something that would be evidence against it.

This is back up which you cannot see, just as Christians cannot see there is no such thing as hell; goes right over their heads!

So you are unaware of the existence of Christians who don't believe hell exists? Small world you live in, considering your years of what you very loosely refer to as 'debate'.

---

I think god planed it all. atheist are atheist, because they are supposed to be, theist are theist, because they are supposed to be. gays the same reasoning, culture, race, we are what we were supposed to be. And god wanted both to exist in humanity.

And you don't like God's plan so you're working to change it?

[ThePinsir]

We do not live in a natural world, its a created world


Evolution is a tool that the designer of earth uses to change his creations; tweak them



I do not believe in abiogenesis, but I accept biogenesis.


I have no idea what this means

Something cannot come from nothing, and there is no proof that god is not real.

4 Citations Needed.

The part you don't understand:

99% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy. 99% of the rest of the universe is made of star matter. 99% of the rest is gas planets. Of the MINUSCULE percentage of the universe that is rocky planets, few are inhabitable. Now, let's look at earth:

70% water.
We can only inhabit 30% of our own "fine tuned" planed. And the part that we CAN live in is susceptible to floods, earthquakes, fires, tornadoes, pestilence, famine, drought, parasites, land slides, volcanic activity...it's like the planet is trying to kill us lol.

[Esquilax]

He... he just literally and without irony committed exactly the same fallacy that I was attempting to illustrate to him was ridiculous and meaningless. He responded to my baseless assertions with yet more baseless assertions.

...

I honestly don't know what I expected would happen differently.

So, ladies and gentlemen, this is what we now know: Mickiel doesn't know what evidence is, what claims are, or what the basis of debate and the burden of proof is. He doesn't know what logical fallacies are, and he doesn't care enough to look into any of this.

And so the question we now all must ask is this: why should we continue to argue with a person who literally does not understand how argumentation works, and is perfectly willing to disrespect us by wallowing in his ignorance and pretending that it's superior to logic?

[Mister Agenda]

You sound like the two sides of the anthropic principles, you think in only one sided terms; only one way could be right; of course its you're way.

And that's not you at all, eh?

I already mentioned the fine tuning of all creation as being deliberate, that was ignored and not accepted.

You didn't support it. Why should we accept the things you say as true when you can't even be bothered to try to tell us why we should think they are true?

No matter how many light years the sun is away from the earth, if god had not placed them both exactly where he did, they could not co-exist.

The distance between the earth and the sun varies by about 3 million miles over the course of a year. How close or far a planet can be from the sun and still have an environment similar enough to earth's that earthly life could survive there depends largely on its atmosphere. Mars could be as warm as Earth if it had an atmosphere like Venus.

That is designed purpose, conscious intent- its ridiculous to claim this is not evidence of god! I may as well be debating a wall.

It's ridiculous to state your conclusion as though it were an argument.

If we did not have a digestive system, we all would die. If we had no heart, we could not exist. if we had no blood, we would not exist. If this is not evidence of purpose and design, I just don't know what is!

Those would be quite good arguments if we didn't have a very good idea of how natural processes account for all of them.

Evolution did't doit, emergant nature did not do this, it was all in place when the universe was made , put in its place; our bodies had a digestive system from our beginning; the first man had a heart,. a head, a torso and blood; those things did NOT evolve over time.

That is a claim, and one clearly in contradiction to the evidence available to us. You said you accepted evolution, you seem to be a liar in addition to your many other failings. And more ignorant of what the theory of evolution actually claims than Ken Ham, which is saying something, as you once again seem to think the theory claims ridiculous things such as the first human not having a heart when hearts evolved hundreds of millions of years ago, and so did everything else you're imagining humans would have had to do without if evoluton were true. You would be less ignorant about evolution if you never heard of it.

---

When you provide it. You have yet to demonstrate the validity of anything you have asserted here.

This is an atheistic rehersed response, just like the Christians do when they debate.

No rehearsal needed, all anyone has to do is read two of your posts to see it.

---

[quote='Mister Agenda'

I would be very interested in seeing your proof that something cannot come from nothing.

Sure. If I may use you in this experiment. You are something, something cannot pull something out of nothing. If so, you reach inside of the empty air in front of you and pull something back from it.

So you think that if something cannot happen in a specific instance, it cannot happen in any situation, anywhere, ever?

[Confused Ape]

Jesus had two female friends, mary and Martha, archaeologist have found their house.

Bethany

Bethany has traditionally been identified with the present-day West Bank city of al-Eizariya (Arabic (العيزرية), meaning "Place of Lazarus"), site of the reputed Tomb of Lazarus, located about 1.5 miles (2.4 km) to the east of Jerusalem on the south-eastern slope of the Mount of Olives.[1] The oldest house in present-day al-Eizariya, a 2,000 year old dwelling reputed to have been (or which at least serves as a reminder of) the House of Martha and Mary, is also a popular pilgrimage site.[2]

Zanecchia (1899), however, argued that ancient Bethany may actually have been located higher up the Mount of Olives from al-Eizariya, closer to Bethphage.[5] The Catholic Encyclopedia refers to Zanecchia (though the Encyclopedia article's author himself discounts his conclusion):

Some believe that the present village of Bethany does not occupy the site of the ancient village; but that it grew up around the traditional cave which they suppose to have been at some distance from the house of Martha and Mary in the village; Zanecchia places the site of the ancient village of Bethany higher up on the southeastern slope of the Mount of Olives, not far from the accepted site of Bethphage, and near that of the Ascension. It is quite certain that the present village formed about the traditional tomb of Lazarus, which is in a cave in the village. The identification of this cave as the tomb of Lazarus is merely possible; it has no strong intrinsic or extrinsic authority. The site of the ancient village may not precisely coincide with the present one, but there is every reason to believe that it was in this general location, mostly by the local villagers who have become dependent on hearsay than on fact, to both the local council which leases this Christian site for an annual higher bid reached in 2007 to about 40,000 Jordanian Dinars per year, and those who lease the site, charging tourists a ONE US dollar fee per head,'an income otherwise non-existent""[6]

Reputed means generally regarded to be, not proven fact. It's not even certain that today's village is on exactly the same site as the original one.

[Mister Agenda]

The fact that you think my evidence is only assertations does not phase me either.

Judging from your posts, that seems to be because you're pig-ignorant and proud of it.

---

Well its just " so Christian of atheist" to respond like that; a blanket constant response to literally everything thrown at you; I tell you its the exact same tactic that Christians use, no matter what I say, they claim its from the devil and not true.

Its just a giant blank; total disconnection; no common ground.

You've only thrown one thing at us: assertions you can't be bothered to support. Why would you expect that if you make the same error over and over we would call it different things?

[Chas]

This guy needs treatment and/or medication. It's too late for education.

[Mister Agenda]

Facts are facts; period!! Its a fact that simon the cyrenian carried jesus cross, archaeologist found simons bone box, we got the mans bones.

Fact: Someone having existed doesn't make every story about them true.

Fact. Its a fact that the high preist Caiaphas slapped jesus on the face, we got that jokers bones as well.

Fact: Someone having existed doesn't make every story about them true.

jesus was baptized on a hill called Golgotha, we got that hill, he was baptized in the river Jordan, its still there! Jesus had two female friends, mary and Martha, archaeologist have found their house. All that is in the bible. And hundreds of finds like that.

Golgotha is just outside of Jerusalem. The river Jordan is not.

---

That it's a 'who' instead of a 'what' is your burden of proof for which to show evidence.

Hey, if you keep showing them a cat, and they keep calling it a dog, what can you do? For an hour I have not posted more evidence, because we are stuck on what is evidence and what is not.

You have not ever posted any evidence on this thread. You have only posted what you think is evidence and refused to learn the difference between claiming something and supporting it.

[Confused Ape]

Here's some interesting evidence for Jesus.

Shingō, Aomori

Shingō village is the location of what is purported to be the last resting place of Jesus, located in the "Tomb of Jesus" (Kirisuto no haka), and the residence of Jesus' last descendants, the family of Sajiro Sawaguchi.[1] According to the Sawaguchi family's claims, Jesus Christ did not die on the cross at Golgotha. Instead his brother, Isukiri,[2] took his place on the cross, while Jesus fled across Siberia to Mutsu Province, in northern Japan. Once in Japan, he became a rice farmer, married, and raised a family with three daughters near what is now Shingō. While in Japan, it is asserted that he traveled, learned, and eventually died at the age of 106. His body was exposed on a hilltop for four years. According to the customs of the time, Jesus' bones were collected, bundled, and buried in the mound purported to be the grave of Jesus Christ.[3][4]

Another mound near the alleged grave of Jesus is said to contain an ear of the brother of Jesus and a lock of hair from Mary, the mother of Jesus, the only relics of his family Jesus could carry when he fled Judaea.[5] The claims started in 1933 after the discovery of supposed "ancient Hebrew documents detailing Jesus' life and death in Japan" [6] that was supposedly the testament of Jesus. These documents were allegedly seized by the Japanese authorities and taken to Tokyo shortly before World War II and have not been seen since.[7]

The English text on the sign explaining the legend of the Tomb of Christ reads:

When Jesus Christ was 21 years old, he came to Japan and pursued knowledge of divinity for 12 years. He went back to Judea at age 33 and engaged in his mission. However, at that time, people in Judea would not accept Christ's preaching. Instead, they arrested him and tried to crucify him on a cross. His younger brother, Isukiri casually took Christ's place and ended his life on the cross.

Christ, who escaped the crucifixion, went through the ups and downs of travel, and again came to Japan. He settled right here in what is now called Herai Village, and died at the age of 106.

On this holy ground, there is dedicated a burial mound on the right to deify Christ, and a grave on the left to deify Isukiri.

The above description was given in a testament by Jesus Christ.

I can't help wondering why Jesus cut his brother's ear off for a relic instead of a lock of hair.

[Mister Agenda]

Well evidence often barrels down to source; and atheist as well as Christians use only their own sources. but I give atheist the nod of being more broad minded between the two;

http://www.universetoday.com/105588/how-...verse-end/

I am going to count that as at least an attempt at evidence, though it would be better to use your own words.

That the universe is exactly the way it is, is only remarkable if we know it could be otherwise. We don't know that. That thing where people say the odds against the universe being the way it is are such-and-such? That's a thought experiment, it isn't based on knowledge, it's based on speculation: IF the universal constants could have been different by arbitrary amount X and IF none of the values of the constants depends on the value of any of the other constants, and IF our life is the only kind of life possible, THEN the universal constants being what they are would have been really unlikely. We also don't know this is the only universe, or how many universes there are (one? billions? infinity?). For all we know, even if our universe is remarkably unlikely, one like ours was bound to happen given all the opportunities. And if there are infinite universes and only one in a trillion trillion trillion is like ours, there are infinite universes like ours.

It is fallacious to argue that something which has happened couldn't have happened by chance after it's already happened if it's possible that it happened by chance. When you decide to buy a lotto ticket, the odds of you picking up the jackpot ticket are millions to one, if you have the jackpot ticket, the odds that you got it are 100%. What kind of idiot would win the lotto jackpot and decide his ticket must not really be the winning one because the odds against it are so long? The odds of you getting any particular Bridge hand are billions to one, but I can deal them all day long. Unlikely things happen all the time, a billions-to-one Bridge hand is only remarkable if you predict what it will be BEFORE I deal it.

Finally, it is also fallacious to claim to know the odds of something for which our sample size is one. We only know of one universe, we don't know why some physical constants are what they are, and we don't know if the universe being the way it is was wildly improbable or completely inevitable, and anyone who claims to know is either lying or overestimating her understanding wildly.