Too often when discussing origins, atheists simply say, "we don't know," and put FAITH in science that one day the answers will come.
But atheism is synonymous with evolution, for which there is not a single shred of evidence.
All it is, is a wonderful successful marketing achievement convincing masses of people that inert chemicals sprang into life, and then from the microbial slime, evolution produced mankind.
What drivel.
If you believe this rubbish, it is because YOU have never taken the time or trouble to study the evidence for and against.
It really is shocking.
Is it not time you thought for yourself?
I don't usually get involved in these sort of threads, but I've read similar things from you so many times that I can't not. All I would say to you is read 'The Blind Watchmaker', which explains my views on this in far greater detail and far more eloquently than I could ever do. And I mean the whole book, not just a precis you might find on the internet.
I'd be VERY interested to read any of your further posts after reading it.
Theland, the bottom line is, if there is/was a creator you can have no idea what or who it is – and I doubt you or anyone else ever will. The Biblical God? The evidence would suggest that it isn't him.
One of the reasons I believe the bible is the accuracy of its prophecies.
Now I am not going to wear my fingers out typing out loads of stuff that is instantly available on the net.
In particular the prophecies concerning the Jews, Jerusalem, and Israel.
Convincing evidence for species to species ? At various times major reductions in the number of species on this planet has occurred. One species separating into various is a simple explanation as to how variety was recovered, and as I posted earlier there is a method that would achieve it. Occam's Razor suggests accepting it in preference to a miracle occurring.
Change of that magnitude would require many generations though, and something preventing the isolated halves of the original species from meeting up and sharing genes before the full separation. Furthermore this is more likely to occur when there are many ecological niches free. It would be difficult for new species to get started if an existing species has already filled the role that might otherwise be filled; which is why you'll see little evidence of that occurring today. One has to use imagination and realise what has to have occurred.
" Now I am not going to wear my fingers out typing out loads of stuff that is instantly available on the net. "
Well, that would work well in a court of law..
"Where's your evidence to convict this man?"
"Oh look it up on google"
OG - simple explanation is not evidence. And "likely," isn't either.
Don't mind me saying, your post is a bit woolly and does not point me in the direction of a source for hard evidence. Does it?
Excellent video KHANDRO.
Dawkins bluntly refuses to acknowledge the evidence for atheist depravity in communism and fascism, which is his way. Atkins is worse.
The rise of militant atheism is very real.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.