Question, What's it like being an Atheist? (Page 4): I think you are just poking fun BUT To clarify: these Wuhan "scientists" (with funding from the U.S.) MUTATED an existing virus...

ForThePeople

Roamin' Catholic wrote:

OK smarty pants, so let's see the greatest scientists get together and create a vi...

uh, wait....I guess they did that in China a few years ago...

I think you are just poking fun BUT

To clarify: these Wuhan "scientists" (with funding from the U.S.) MUTATED an existing virus with the express goal of making it LETHAL to humans.

You know, they casually use the term "GAIN OF FUNCTION" to disguise the real intent, which was to kill humans. Ask the supreme liar Fauci about it.

And it DID to the tune of MILLIONS worldwide.

There is no creation involved whatsoever cuz they are incapable of doing that.

But they sure are capable of destruction and death.

You can ask the Ukrainians about that one while you're at it.

Roamin' Catholic Loc: luxurious exile

ForThePeople wrote:

My point is that some of us believe that humans we... (show quote)

Well said!

And the great deficiency in the random event hypothesis is that it doesn't go all the way back to the prime mover. It starts at the Big Bang, assuming that there was nothing before the Bang, and asserts that everything came from nothing for no reason.

This cannot be scientifically nor philosophically supported.

Unless an adherent to the random event hypothesis prefers the steady state hypothesis, to which modern astrophysicists no longer ascribe, or the equally disreputable Big Bang/Big Crunch ad infinitem hypothesis.

No, there has to be a Prime Mover, an Uncreated Creator. Any attempt to find a way around this simple logic is futile.

ForThePeople

Roamin' Catholic wrote:

Well said! br br And the great deficiency in th... (show quote)

Bravo!!

Roamin' Catholic Loc: luxurious exile

ForThePeople wrote:

I think you are just poking fun BUT br br To clar... (show quote)

Yes, I was just poking fun. As for the rest of your post, I totally agree.

Not because of my limited knowledge of the subject, but rather by the preponderance of evidence.

ForThePeople

Roamin' Catholic wrote:

Yes, I was just poking fun. As for the rest of your post, I totally agree.

Not because of my limited knowledge of the subject, but rather by the preponderance of evidence.

Amen...

Mikeyavelli

ForThePeople wrote:

My point is that some of us believe that humans we... (show quote)

Hey, I'm part amoeba, and that's offensive.

ForThePeople

Mikeyavelli wrote:

Hey, I'm part amoeba, and that's offensive.

Funny

Mikeyavelli

ForThePeople wrote:

Funny

Got at least one cell laughing. 🙂

SeaLass Loc: Western Soviet Socialist Republics

If a creationistic point of view makes more sense to you, go with it, but accept the fact that not everybody is going to draw the same conclusions you do.

ForThePeople

SeaLass wrote:

If a creationistic point of view makes more sense to you, go with it, but accept the fact that not everybody is going to draw the same conclusions you do.

If you choose to believe you're a direct descendant of an AMOEBA so be it.

Just a small piece of the puzzle to enlighten the "scientific" community would be a BELIEVABLE explanation how just ONE part of human anatomy was formed via a non creationist perspective, the human EYE

There is no amount of the main ingredient (TIME) that offers a plausible explanation of how that would actually occur without multiple huge assumptions that are virtually preposterous.

Again, you guys are asking us to believe that despite no practical evidence (even to this most technologically advanced day) for the viability of the creation of life via chemicals and energy and other mysterious ingredients, we are to believe that complex systems like human eyes, hearts, brains etc. EVOLVED from that primordial soup and somehow were integrated to form humans (or other animals for that matter).

That's a bridge WAY TOO FAR for me.

My assumption is clearly written in the book of Genesis and involves the existence of a Creator.

That premise is far more believable to me and billions of others.

SeaLass Loc: Western Soviet Socialist Republics

Since it seems obvious that this discussion could go on for ever, as intriguing as that might be, I feel that it is time to sign off this thread. My closing remark is one you would probably agree with:

“For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without it, no evidence will suffice.”
― St. Thomas Aquinas

ForThePeople

SeaLass wrote:

Since it seems obvious that this discussion could go on for ever, as intriguing as that might be, I feel that it is time to sign off this thread. My closing remark is one you would probably agree with:

“For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without it, no evidence will suffice.”
― St. Thomas Aquinas

It also seems obvious that you are unable to justify a position that requires a complete suspension of logic and curiosity to believe as true.

Have a look at the miracle of life outside ANYWHERE and ask yourself if that could be the result of RANDOM interactions over time.

You gotta put your faith somewhere.
YOUR choice.
YOUR risk.
YOUR eternity.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

SeaLass wrote:

Since it seems obvious that this discussion could go on for ever, as intriguing as that might be, I feel that it is time to sign off this thread. My closing remark is one you would probably agree with:

“For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without it, no evidence will suffice.”
― St. Thomas Aquinas

Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe.
Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief—that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications. Building on the case for the intelligent design of life that he developed in Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe.

Meyer argues that theism—with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator—best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God.

ForThePeople

Blade_Runner wrote:

url=https://www.amazon.com/Return-God-Hypothesis-... (show quote)

I think SeaLass is hightailing it outa here.

SeaLass Loc: Western Soviet Socialist Republics

ForThePeople wrote:

I think SeaLass is hightailing it outa here.

Not really, just that both sides have had our say, no need to bore everybody with endless repetitions, unless of course there is overwhelming demand for an encore performance.