Belief in evolution by country - % of population

Ricter · Feb 9, 2010

Quote from Gabfly1:

Oh, how clever.

Well, you didn't respond to the implication when I asked for the substitution, so I made it blatant. Yeah, it falls flat that way.

bigarrow · Feb 9, 2010

Quote from kut2k2:

If it was verified through objective experimentation that prayer worked better than medical science, that would be evidence of divine intervention. As has been explained before, the position of atheism is open-mindedness: "I'll believe in your god when I see it." I believe in evidence. Evidence of a god can no more be denied than evidence of no god.

There's the rub. Atheists believe in all the evidence. Theists believe in a myth and seek only evidence that confirms the myth while willfully ignoring all evidence that refutes the myth.

Well said and that should be the end to this discussion, but it won't be.

Tresor · Feb 9, 2010

Quote from kut2k2:

If it was verified through objective experimentation that prayer worked better than medical science, that would be evidence of divine intervention.

Someone please post a link to the research proving that prayer works better than medicine...

stu · Feb 9, 2010

Jem's religious. You only need read his posts to see prayer doesn't work.

Index piker · Feb 9, 2010

Quote from stu:

Fine and thank you for your help. According to your fix , that's definitely a 'couldn't be' then , as far as first cause goes. Either by the Universe or by a Creator.

I think you may have helped the theist understand why they could step away from that superficial first cause Creator idea .

So now what about first cause(s) rather than just a first cause. Many Creators ?
Theists won't like that unless they perhaps start to revert back to Norse Gods.
From what they say, with no Creator God (or Gods) , what you would get, is no universe. Just more nothing.

I have a problem with loony toons atheists who attack theist's "first cause" but steadfastly ignore their own.

Oh btw: Just like a majority of the Christians out there I was not aware that GOD & evolution are mutually excusive.

What I have a problem with are the nutcases who think evolution solves abiogenesis or some how is evidence of no God.

Index piker · Feb 9, 2010

Quote from bigarrow:

Talking with these atheists is like listening to a 4 year old talking about Santa.
There is absolutely no evidence that they accept.
This is the question atheists need to ask themselves. "What evidence do I need to have, to accept God exists?" If your answer is, there is no evidence then you need admit that to yourself. And stop these stupid discussions, because nothing matters except that you believe, that is the only argument you have.

Fixed that for you as well.

Tresor · Feb 9, 2010

Quote from Index piker:

What I have a problem with are the nutcases who think evolution solves abiogenesis or some how is evidence of no God.

I think those as you call ''nutcases'' claim that the concept of evolution rather contradict the concept of the Christian God. Nothing more.

If those ''nutcases'' believe that dinosaur fossils can be as old as 165 million years then it is logical for them that the Christian God could not have created the earth some 6 thousand years ago. Ego (i) either the Christian God is imaginary or (ii) he has a great sense of humour or the Bible is not the true voice of God.

However there might be deeply religious people who think that evil scientists put the fossils in the ground to misled Christians and conspire against the concept of the Christian God. Everybody has the right to utter such consipracy theories under the freedom of speach right.

Index piker · Feb 9, 2010

Quote from Tresor:

1)I think those as you call ''nutcases'' claim that the concept of evolution rather contradict the concept of the Christian God. Nothing more.

If those ''nutcases'' believe that dinosaur fossils can be as old as 165 million years then it is logical for them that the Christian 2)God could not have created the earth some 6 thousand years ago. Ego (i) either the Christian God is imaginary or (ii) he has a great sense of humour or the Bible is not the true voice of God.

However there might be deeply religious people who think that evil scientists put the fossils in the ground to misled Christians and conspire against the concept of the Christian God. Everybody has the right to utter such consipracy theories under the freedom of speach right.

1) Where do you get that crap?
2) straw argument for most Christians
3) conjecture based on a straw argument

NEXT!

Tresor · Feb 9, 2010

Quote from Index piker:

NEXT! [/B]

NEXT? Sure. There were and there are tens, hundreds and thousands of gods whorshiped all over the world. Each gods says he is the only true one.

Obviously if you are a logical person, your conclusion is that only one religion is true, one god (if any) is real and the others are fake ones.

How a logical person knows that the Christian God is a fake one? Because the Christian God talks non-sensical non-scientific gibberish in his book (just like a majority of thousands of other gods do / did).

Now a surprise for you guys. Big Bang was depicted in Qu'ran. Evolution was depicted in Qu'ran (migration of organisms from water to land) + other stuff.

A very scientific book

Index piker · Feb 9, 2010

Quote from Tresor:

1)NEXT? Sure. There were and there are tens, hundreds and thousands of gods whorshiped all over the world. Each gods says he is the only true one.

2)Obviously if you are a logical person, your conclusion is that only one religion is true, one god (if any) is real and the others are fake ones.

1)Irrelevant to the issue of God and evolution being mutually exclusive.

2) It's obvious to me you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground re

nly one religion is true, one god (if any) is real.