NDMA

In looking at the answers to a question asking atheists to define god it occurs to me - I don't believe any 'god' as defined by atheists... Could it be just one big misunderstanding?

Theists don't deny science, they just remain unconvinced of certain claims because of insufficient convincing evidence..

From what I see, so called atheist only seem to know how to attack - negative messages Against God Against Christians, Against the Bible.. History has show us time and time again negative movements seldom get beyond the fringe (more than 10% of a given population).

Do atheists honestly think they will be different?

The heavens and earth are filled with entities and processes that rare composed of multiple interdependent components at the micro and macro levels.

Every instance of any functional entity or process composed of multiple interdependent components observed to come into existence it has been the product of design and manufacture (creation).

The above is experimentally demonstrable and reproducible...We can at will produce novel functional entities and processes composed of multiple interdependent components...But this has only been observed to be a product of design.

Hypothesis based on the evidence.. Functional entities or processes composed of multiple interdependent components arise as a product of design.

What does this explain? It explains the origin of functional entities or processes that are composed of multiple interdependent components.

How would you disprove this hypothesis?

Show an example of a functional (does something) entity or process composed of multiple interdependent components that is OBSERVED to come into existence that is NOT the product of Design.

Since the hypothesis is based on empirical evidence (observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated AND reproducible) it requires empirical evidence to disprove it.

You twist and turn and call scriptures 'figurative' based not on the text itself, but on the desire to please the opinions of men peddling pseudoscience..

Do you think God finds this pleasing?

What will you do when the theories your are twisting the Scripture to conform to expire and are replaced with new theories?

That if you honestly look at history more Christians were killed by polythists for being 'atheists' than atheists?

Last August (2013) atheists were all up at arms condemning Amish parents who wanted to opt out of Chemotherapy and were sued to force their 10 year old daughter to receive treatment... Here parents left the country and did as they wished...

Their daughter is now free of cancer! The Hospital is actively backing away from the case.

Looks like the parents were right after all!

http://journal.livingfood.us/2013/11/08/sudden-twi...

Had a conversation with a skin head the other day -- too two showers just to get the stink off.

He said they are 1000% in favor of Gay Marriage -- can you guess why?

I will tell you before I pick best answer

Science by having a priori (unproven assumption) that rules out including in any explanation of the evidence assures that scientists will have it wrong in every case where the correct answer is "God did it"!

I keep hearing in this category "Evolution is a fact" To call it a fact you need evidence. To assert a theory empirical evidence (Actually observed in nature or experimentally validated) There remain two hypotheses in the evolutionary model that have no empirical evidence supporting it and therefore do not even quality as a theory. You keep asking theists for evidence, well I am asking you, Where is your evidence?

The two unproven hypotheses are:

1. The accumulation of mutations can produce novel alleles that are both beneficial for survival and selectable.

2. The combination of novel alleles and natural selection can produce a novel phenotype.

Both represent the minimum necessary for common descent to occur. When has either been observed in nature or objectively validated by experimentation?

Don't argue proving natural selection is enough, natural selection explains variation with a genus and amounts to selecting existing information. Formation of a novel phenotype requires new alleles, as well as modification of the non-coding control areas of the gene that mediate morphological development and physiology. This is why mutations was presented, natural selection alone fails to explain the source for new alleles.

Don't argue every little mutation provides new information etc. Dawkins debated Gould back and forth for 3 months the allele is the basic unit of selection. Anything less than a novel allele is not sufficient to the task.

Good luck!

Look very closely, the door stops in mid flight then just drops to the ground. Violating Newton's laws of motion..

How do you explain it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKBOWyiAhro&feature...

Do you think that God is sending these solar flares to zap R&S users for being so naughty?

Seriously, you call, I will be shutting down my computer - lost one a few years ago due to a solar flair so I am perhaps hyper cautious:

http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2012/07/...

There remain two hypotheses in the evolutionary model that have not been proven

1. The accumulation of mutations can produce novel alleles that are both beneficial for survival and selectable.

2. The combination of novel alleles and natural selection can produce a novel phenotype.

Both represent the minimum necessary for Evolution to explain the diversity of life observed in the biosphere. When has either been observed in nature or objectively validated by experimentation?

Don't argue proving natural selection is enough, natural selection explains variation with a genus and amounts to selecting existing information. Formation of a novel phenotype requires new alleles, as well as modification of the non-coding control areas of the gene that mediate morphological development and physiology. This is why mutations was presented, natural selection alone fails to explain the source for new alleles.

Don't argue every little mutation provides new information etc. Dawkins debated Gould back and forth for 3 months the allele is the basic unit of selection. Anything less than a novel allele is not sufficient to the task.

Good luck!

There remain two hypotheses in the evolutionary model that have not been proven

1. The accumulation of mutations can produce novel alleles that are both beneficial for survival and selectable.

2. The combination of novel alleles and natural selection can produce a novel phenotype.

Both represent the minimum necessary for Evolution to explain the diversity of life observed in the biosphere. When has either been observed in nature or objectively validated by experimentation?

Don't argue proving natural selection is enough, natural selection explains variation with a genus and amounts to selecting existing information. Formation of a novel phenotype requires new alleles, as well as modification of the non-coding control areas of the gene that mediate morphological development and physiology. This is why mutations was presented, natural selection alone fails to explain the source for new alleles.

Don't argue every little mutation provides new information etc. Dawkins debated Gould back and forth for 3 months the allele is the basic unit of selection. Anything less than a novel allele is not sufficient to the task.

Good luck!

a. Being right

b. An Atheist that knows the Bible and can reason,

c. Being wrong

d $InsertYourOwnIdeas

a. Being wrong

b. A theist who knows science and can reason

c. Being right

d. $InsertYourOwnAnswer

Asking what Medical Breakthroughs evolution can be credited with here is one response:

"Who knows, even the smartest people can sometimes be blinded by wishful thinking. It doesn't change the fact that the study of the mutations of microorganisms and the genetics of more complicated organisms are exactly what allows medical scientists to engineer bacteria that can produce medicine like penicillin or create immunizations from neutralized bacteria. It also gives insight into how and why viruses evolve and build up resistance to medicine and how to possibly counter those effects."

The reality is penecillin is still produced by molds their original source. Erethromyocin is produced by genetically engineered bacteria, but it was genetics not evolution that was behind this breakthrough.

The First vaccine to be widely distributed was for small pox and that was 60 yeas before Darwin's theory. Obviously evolution can not be given credit for breakthroughs that happened before the theory even existed.

The fact is none of these advances can be directly linked to evolutionary biology and none of the scientists behind them were evolutionary biologists. If there were real breakthroughs that can be credited to evolutionary biology, why rewrite history and make stuff up?