Comments on Atheist Propaganda: The Atheist's Riddle Revisited

You can fuck off until you're ready to answer ...

2010-05-20T12:06:04.426+09:00

You can fuck off until you're ready to answer my questions as outlined in the other post. That's the way it's going to be.

2010-05-20T10:49:38.704+09:00

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

I'm trying to simplify things as much as possi...

2010-05-19T16:11:24.652+09:00

I'm trying to simplify things as much as possible for you. Prove that I made a clock. Do you have such evidence? No? Then the proof stands!

I notice you're still too cowardly to address ...

2010-05-19T16:09:58.247+09:00

I notice you're still too cowardly to address the other points in my first post. You picked the one you wanted. At least it's a start.

I have another question. If you're too small a man (woman?) to admit that you screwed up the meaning, spelling and pronunciation of 'ad hominem', why would I expect you to admit when the focus of your argument has been defeated?

By the way, are you the one who called The Atheist Experience show last Sunday?

I'm a clockmaker? Prove it! That's the whole point, which you repeatedly miss! You have to PROVE that I made a clock, otherwise you have no evidence and no reason to say such a thing! You want special considerations for your argument. Go ahead, PROVE that I made the clock. And what if you do find such evidence, but it takes you 2 years? Then what? Was the 'proof' a proof during those 2 years, and not afterward? You want your 'proof' to stand as a place-filler until the day we get the evidence. That's not a proof. You don't know what a proof is!

And the other ones? Like the diamond?

What about this?

1. DNA is a code.
2. All codes are created by mortal animals. This is empirically observed, over and over.
3. DNA was created by mortal animals.

If you can't see the flaw with your reasoning, then I'm really sorry for you. You're just a fool in that case.

Yawn... Admin says: 1. This object is a clock. ...

2010-05-19T15:52:51.786+09:00

Yawn...

Admin says:

1. This object is a clock. It has hands and numbers around a dial, it ticks, and it can be used to tell time.

2. The author of the Atheist Propaganda site is not a clock-maker. All clocks are created by somebody other than him. There is no known instance of him creating a clock.

3. Therefore, this clock was not created by the author of the Atheist Propaganda site.

If you can find an example of a clock that was created by the author of the Atheist Propaganda site, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

PG Response:

Your syllogism is flawed due to your Premise #2.

YOU ARE A CLOCKMAKER! YOU DID MAKE A CLOCK!

Perry's premise#2 is correct as it stands! ALL KNOWWWWWN CODES ARE DESIGNED! It is a true statement.

Again, all you are doing is having shall I say it....Faith!.. that one day your priests in lab coats will find that illusive naturally occurring code!

Interesting point however is the following:

If the syllogysm had the author of this site as a non-intelligent object, it would quickly disintegrate because we all know that random chemicals cannot create a clock.

Infact, to demonstrate the feeblness of Atheist challenging Perry's syllogism, lets rewrite the syllogism to be more inline like Perry's to more impressively illustrate Perry's syllogism. I shall use it for our further debate.

1) Clocks tell time, time is coded information.

2) All known codes are designed.

3) Clocks are proof of design.

All you Atheists need is provide empirical evidence of a naturally occurring code and you have toppled my proof...

.

Been a while since the last post... Time to enter ...

2010-03-09T22:56:14.608+09:00

Been a while since the last post... Time to enter the debate!

Let me start by stating my credentials. I am not the most intelligent person, but I always try to think my arguments through. My IQ is roughly 121. I am currently in an Australian University studying Microbiolgy.

Now, as for my argument:

I am going to point out a few things I know about life. Things which are rather obvious.

1. Everything that lives will eventually die. Be it Disease, famine, predator, accident, not knowing water depth and jumping, everything that is alive, or will be, will die.

2. Something that is not suited to it's environment is more likely to die. Examples: A crocodile out of water, Plant in constant shade, slow rabbits etc.

3. While things are alive, most of them will reproduce. These reproductions are not clones. Life reproduces with variation. Easily observable, just notice how you're different from your parents.

Because life reproduces with variation, life is constantly changing. In an unchanging environment, that a species has a high survival rate, few changes will occur over long periods of time. If the environment changes, and the species is no longer adapted to living there, the changes will be more dramatic.

A similar thing happens if a species capable of moving moves to a new environment. The changes that occur are also more dramatic. The speed of evolution depends on the level of change.

Now, by 'more dramatic' I mean somewhere in the order of being a new species after 100-150 generations, if the level of change is high. How long the generation is depends on the species. For humans, I'd say a generation is roughly 30 years. Evidence for this is not difficult to find, just google it. In a closed system human population where the environment drastically changes, it would take approximately 3000-4500 years to become an entirely new species. Physically they'd probably look similar to humans in the way that dogs look similar to jackles.

That is what you'd call macro-evolution. Which explains why it hasn't been observed.

Now as for the lizard becoming a bird, that isn't how it works, but I'll do my best to use that analogy.

For starters, the lizards would have to be living mostly in high places, or to be forced there and must stay there.

They would also need to either jump from place to place in their normal lives, or be forced into such behaviour through an envirnomental factor (predator, area subject to flooding, whatever).

A lizard with a slightly lighter bone structure is going to have an easier time making the necessary jumps. It'll also not hit the ground as hard if it fell from said high place (Or it would float easier).

This lizard is more likely to survive, and will pass on his genes to the next generation, some of which will have heavier bones, some will have lighter. Over many generations (lets assume the generation for this lizard is approx. 1 year), the light-weight bone gene will become more prevelent within the species, until all the lizards have bone-density similar to that of modern birds.

ith the assumed generation, this could be anywhere from 100 years to several thousand, depending on how suited the lizard is to jumping from high place to high place.

And don't say 'having the right bone density doesn't make a bird', because I know that. That also is a flawed argument that suggests that only one aspect of a species can change at a time. It's entirely possible that other lizards get pseudo-wings, during this process of evolving lighter bones, which also increase the chance of successful jumps, and decrease the chance of death in failed jumps. Who says their scales can't become more aerodynamic at the same time?

Please point out flaws in my argument, as I believe that a man can learn from his mistakes. Hell, I don't even mind if you come back with: 'That's wrong cause god exists'. Obviously thats not a real argument, but if you feel you can justify it, by all means try.

I call it the 'argument from awe'. Probabi...

2010-01-26T11:43:35.240+09:00

I call it the 'argument from awe'. Probability is being misused here, as it is on Marshall's site.

Which do you think is more probable? That your driveway would have every molecule in it in exactly the relationship it is, or that you would exist to stand on your driveway?

The problem comes in because probability requires context. There are laws which affect what happens which are, well, laws and then there is chance. But to even try to put a number on the probability without knowing the underlying laws and context is foolish to the extreme.

But big numbers impress us, don't they?

Nathan, some reading for you. Random mutations: h...

2010-01-05T19:57:43.656+09:00

Nathan, some reading for you.

Random mutations: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml

Hox genes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17644373

Evo Devo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology

Transitional forms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

In Darwinian theory, species transforming into oth...

2010-01-05T02:40:38.888+09:00

In Darwinian theory, species transforming into other species would have to come about by many single and mutually exclusive mutations.

For the sake of argument, lets say a lizard was going to evolve into a bird. First you'd need to grow the joints that the wings attach to. Then you'd need the lightweight bone structure that birds have (which lizards have no use for). You'd also need the muscles and the feathers. And because of all that, if you didn't have all of those come up in a single generation then the lizard would be at a serious disadvantage to be eaten by predators.

If you added the parts one each generation you'd have 5 or 6 generations which are weaker before they get stronger, and by then they would be eaten. Not to mention that once they got through w/ the evolution, they would need to adapt to another environment.

So the theory about random mutations doesn't hold up

Nathan. Macroevolution is just a lot of microevolu...

2010-01-03T21:42:26.089+09:00

Nathan.
Macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution; there is no qualitative difference.
The articles explain the mechanics of micro,- and therefore by extension, also of macro.

Incidentally, real biological scientists do not use these terms, they are just creationist jargon.
The real world is so much more interesting than religious twaddle,-why do you continue to waste your time as well as ours?
Now I really do not have any more time to waste on this. Goodbye again.

Well, both of the articles were about micro-evolut...

2010-01-03T21:01:58.107+09:00

Well, both of the articles were about micro-evolution, not macro-evolution, which proves nothing. God would be a sick being if He didn't allow His creations to adapt to changes in the environment. However, it would be more effort than it's worth to change species in order to adapt. That would be a waste of energy.

Nathan' Here's the other one: http://www...

2010-01-03T20:41:01.117+09:00

Nathan' Here's the other one:

http://www.physorg.com/news181467990.html

--and as for the "2nd law Of Thermodynamics",--don't be so silly.
It applies only to "closed" thermodynamic systems. The Earth is a "open" system,--receiving a constant input of energy from the Sun.. I suggest you read the literature.

Nathan. I wasn't going to bother, but my son-i...

2010-01-03T20:27:37.729+09:00

Nathan. I wasn't going to bother, but my son-in-law, a computer software engineer, has just sent me this; (I am a Doctor by the way)--so neither of us are uneducated:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8435320.stm

If you come back for more, I have another one from him.
I suggest you surrender now,--I will be merciful.

Yes, there are things that I admit I don't kno...

2010-01-03T06:49:41.431+09:00

Yes, there are things that I admit I don't know. Like why it is that atheists are so adamant about a God that they don't believe exists. I don't understand women, I don't fully understand God (which is impossible considering that He is infinite, and we're finite), but I do know a bit about Him.

Evolution is not science because it is not observable. We can see the 'effects' but we can only infer, at best, about the causes of them.

You're knowledge of God could be increased if you would read through the Bible instead of being completely ignorant about it. I would recommend the ESV version if you do.

The 'wild' west you refer to never existed. Gun fights during the frontier days were few and far between, Hollywood is the one who made those famous.

Rules would have had to have evolved too. At some point in our history humans would have had to have been armed to the teeth as you put it. That way, they would have evolved into the 'civilized' world we have today. However the second law of thermodynamics would disprove that.

Nathan, Perhaps I have a modicum of humility? I a...

2010-01-03T06:27:45.092+09:00

Nathan,
Perhaps I have a modicum of humility? I admit that there are actually things I don't know, -whereas creationists are so arrogant that they think they know the Mind of God. Even before this latest post of yours, I was considering asking you whether there is anything that you could possibly concede that you do not know, but that an atheist might?
Anything about Evolution, biochemistry, logic, statistics. history perhaps? But I know in advance from dealings with other creationists that you are cleverer than all the worlds scientists and philosophers put together.
Actually the main reason I do not know about God is because, as Christians are always pointing out,-God is Unknowable. Yet this does not prevent you from knowing for certain that he lives "outside the Universe", that he has a plan just for you, and a son called Jesus, Iesous, Yeshua etc etc.
To answer your question about moralirt; try reading a book by Matt Ridley called "Origin of Virtue", (or something like that).
But even without reading it, surely it should be obvious that we humans make our own morality so that we can get along for our mutual benefit,--otherwise we would live in a Mad Max world where everyone goes around armed to the teeth and having to watch their back,-or like the wild west, where only the fastest gun survives (for a while). We have to have rules. How do you think people managed before Jesus, and before that,-Abraham, Noah and all the other biblical heros? Before the Jewish god was ever heard of? How did the Egyptians build pyramids unless they had order and structure and rules in their society. But enough;--I told you it was a waste of time taking to you. I don't know why I bother. Bye.

Your admittance to your lack of knowledge of God d...

2010-01-03T03:20:51.828+09:00

Your admittance to your lack of knowledge of God doesn't help you any. Clearly you do not understand anything about God because you can't see how good of a system we have here in this universe. By one animals death, it supplies life to another animal (whether with meat or by decomposing).

Since evolution gives us no moral standards, what makes murder, stealing, etc wrong?

God does not live in our universe and time has no effect on Him, however He has control over it. That's the point of the 'blink of an eye' statement.

The chaos point is saying that what you call chaos is not what God calls chaos.

Yes, we are created in His image, but that doesn't mean that we have His mind in us. People do evil things everyday, that's not part of the mind of God. So no, our minds are not God's mind working in us.

Nathan, You have missed the point.I have no knowle...

2010-01-03T03:00:07.210+09:00

Nathan,
You have missed the point.I have no knowledge of a God, whether "in a box" or out of one. The point is that evolution is naturalistic, and unguided. Moral notions of good or bad do not come into it. What you call good coming out of bad, is just events proceeding over time, with causal links between them. That is evolution,-everything feeding on everything else, and disposing of all the corpses. The theoretical alternative would be piles of rotting corpses everywhere, with other animals being too polite and godly to eat them (seeing as how they God's perfect creations). Therefore none of the living animals would ever eat, and so they would die too, and life would grind to a halt.It may be a mystery as to why anything at all evolves,--but invoking God does nothing to explain it; you then have to explain God as well, -or make an ad hoc assumption that God is eternal and uncreated,--but then,- so is the Universe (which we do actually know to exist). As I said, it is a cruel system but it works,--but not for any particular individual,- man or beast.
The "thousand years is but a blink of an eye in God's sight" is just a cheap excuse to try and tie the evolutionary timescale into the biblical chronology. If you do some arithmetic you will see that there is no way to make it work.
Concerning the "chaos" point,--you are having to perform another cheap theological trick by inventing a dualistic notion of the world; typical examples are "God's chaos is not human chaos" (your own point); God's truth is not human truth, God lives in a different Universe from humans (or outside it); God's ways are not human ways etc. And yet,--after all that you(theologians) have the cheek to say that we are made in God's image, and that our Mind is actually God's Mind working within us. These are two contradictory claims; (see my last sentence about "having your cake and eating it".

My "In Praise of Eggs" essay is in fact a joke, composed while I was drunk!

For one, you assume your perfect world to look lik...

2010-01-03T00:21:24.090+09:00

For one, you assume your perfect world to look like God's perfect world. Making the classic mistake of putting God in a box. You assume that 'premature' death is worse than some other form of death, but is it really? If one animal dies, but its body feeds 4 or 5 others, something good has happened.

As far as time taken for evolution, if to God a thousand years is as a blink of an eye and vice versa, why would He want to do everything quickly? Wouldn't He much rather enjoy His work? If He is infinite and has no sense of time, why would He want to do everything quickly?

Is it not possible that what looks like chaos to you is the infinitely complex systems that God has designed?

As for the egg thing, if you were a god, I would loathe you for creating your efficient world and forcing people to live in it.

Sagging breasts could be avoided by reducing the u...

2010-01-02T08:14:54.063+09:00

Sagging breasts could be avoided by reducing the urgency of lactation if the mother’s egg was reasonably large, with a built in store of nutrition for the developing embryo. Instead of a large infant having to be damagingly extracted from the mother,-reasonably small- sized babies would hatch out, and as long as you did not lose them in a moment of absent-mindedness (which could have been eliminated anyway by natural selection), they could then be conveniently stored, perhaps on a top shelf out of the way of pets, and early weaning accomplished by feeding them more conveniently by sucking from a specially adapted milk producing maternal finger- tip. The babies could be designed to produce only enough warning noises to remind mother to feed and change them, and play with them,--rather than hours of pointless wailing all day and night. Changing could also be reduced if babies did not wastefully produce liquid urine, and high residue faeces,-but instead produced only dry uric acid like birds, who thus conserve water.
One disadvantage of the above scheme would be that a woman produced a baby every month regularly if all the eggs developed anyway, whether male fertilised or not. However, as in the case of hens eggs, this could easily be circumvented by the mere expedient of re-cycling them by eating them. This might require certain adjustments in one’s aesthetic and moral attitudes,-though of course God could easily have built in the required software when designing humans. After all, some mothers eat their own placentas as a sort of hippie gesture,--fried with onions I believe. One cannot really call it cannibalism,-any more than calling contraception, abortion.
Having one human digit discretely modified as a kind of proto-penis for fertilising the egg by touch, or in the case of the mother, a substitute for a lactating breast, with all its inconvenience and discomfort,-is not without its imitators in the animal kingdom. There is a I believe a species of Octopus in which one of the arms develops into a kind of swimming penis, becomes detached from the body, and swims off on its own in search of female octopuses to impregnate. We don’t have to go quite that far; I am not advocating flying human penises,-that might get a bit out of hand, and also cause anguish to hay-fever sufferers if they happened to be allergic to air-borne sperms, like pollen.

So there we are; just another way God could have done it.

Reg Le Sueur

In Praise of Eggs Imagine how it would be if huma...

2010-01-02T08:12:59.116+09:00

In Praise of Eggs

Imagine how it would be if humans laid eggs like birds and reptiles. Think of the implications for the aesthetics and mechanics of reproduction.
Christians have always hated sex and vaginal birth, apart from when they were excusing it as a gift from God. If God really designed human anatomy and physiology, rather than it being a product of evolution, then he was remarkably lacking in foresight. Could he not have foreseen the subjugation of women by men on the grounds of them being “unclean”? Could he not have invented a better system than sex and menstruation and vaginal birth, being as they are, all mixed up with excretory functions? We can understand Nature being economical by doubling up on the combined functions of the urogenital tract,-but is God so limited in resources, materials and imagination?
Sex, though great fun, is also completely ridiculous. It is an obvious means of transmission of infecting organisms, and requires elaborate hygienic precautions if it is not to be distasteful. I once heard a Creationist extolling the size and shape of bananas as an obvious proof of the existence of God, as they are so eminently suitable for the human mouth. Similarly the penis and vagina are designed for each other, but did it not occur to God that having dispensed penises and freewill to men, that they would also use them unproductively in the alternative human orifices?—which would then necessitate Him having to smite them all for committing abominations before the Lord?
Human menstruation could have been minimised just like human oestrus. Likewise sex could have been avoided by mass virgin births. True, we would all be clones, but it would save arguments about which baby belonged to which parent. The advantages of sexual chromosomal mixing of male and female DNA could be retained by a more voluntary process of inoculation of already laid female eggs, with male Y-chromosomes perhaps by merely rubbing them with a special sperm- producing male finger. Think of it-- no more uncontrollable male sexual urges resulting in rape; babies when you want them and not otherwise. No more overpopulation, starving, abused or enslaved children.
If women laid sizeable eggs like hens do, there would be no more obstetrics problems, or subsequent gynaecological ones like incontinence; no stretch marks and lax tummies.

7. The whole concept of the Natural selection of r...

2010-01-02T07:46:40.211+09:00

7. The whole concept of the Natural selection of random variations ,ie. Darwinian Evolution is a cruel process, relying on violence, suffering, and enormous waste among living things,-including the obviously sentient and human-like “higher” social animals, eg Whales, Dolphins, cats, dogs, and of course primates. The Ichneumon fly lays its eggs in a live caterpillar, and its grubs devour the caterpillar from the inside out. There is the waste of unused sperms, seeds and fruits and massive infant mortality;--and then God encourages further waste in the case of Onan having to practice Coitus interruptus and “spill his seed on the ground”!

8. Theists try to suggest that there is a purpose, and that God created and guides Evolution. But as Evolution (the Natural Selection of random variations) is therefore a random process (proved by the 99% extinctions as above),-- and the changes in the natural environment which does the selecting are also random, eg solar flares, asteroid and comet strikes, earthquakes and volcanos, hurricanes etc which cause mass extinctions from time to time,- and which all have naturalistic causes,--how then can a God be said to guide such chaotic processes? It is a self-contradiction, and is made with the desperate hope of tacking “God” onto all aspects of Nature, because of the self-interest of the religious establishment. I always thought God was supposed to have created order out of chaos,-not chaos out of order. They ask the question “Why”? There is no “why?”,- no purpose. Blind naturalistic Evolution demonstrates that fully. “Why” questions are semantic trickery that can usually be resolved as part of “How “questions. If turns creation stories upon their heads to say in effect that God created chaos out of Order(his own self) so as to re-create order,- when the Bible states clearly that it was the other way round,--order came out of chaos. Although natural selection overall appears random, nevertheless, at a lower level of explanation, all evolutionary change is finely tuned by selective competition, sexual selection, and a kind of arms war among and between species.

9. If God set up Evolution then he knew what he was doing. If he set it up, and continues to “guide” it,-he has exhibited blood lust and lack of compassion for his creation. If he set it up then walked away and washed his hands of it,- then he just shows cruel indifference and irresponsibility.

10. About a million different species of beetles have been documented, and a
about thirty thousand species of Jellyfish. This is compatible with Evolution, but totally absurd if created by a God. One would have to ask him-Why?. Christians would no doubt assert that it is a demonstration of his power and love. So should I follow his example and tip a skip-full of live Cockroaches onto our living-room floor, and explain to my wife that I did it as an act of love?

11. We know that herbivorous animals like rabbits, sheep, goats etc can feed off vegetation and digest cellulose. So why did God find it necessary to create carnivorous animals who cannot digest grass etc, but instead tear each other to pieces and devour each other,-including we humans, who have to farm animals, fish and poultry and shoot and slaughter them for our food, thereby causing animal suffering and and the spread of parasitic, bacterial and virus diseases among animals and humans,--eg Bird flu?

12.A successful scientific theory is something that explains and predicts by itself,-it is self-sufficient. A theory which needs to be created and sustained and guided is not a theory at all; it is a contradiction.

Christians like to have their cake and eat it . For the reasons given above, Evolution implies Atheism, so Christians have to choose; they can either have Theism or Evolution, but not Theistic Evolution,- it is a nonsense.

Last edited by Reginald Le Sueur Monday 10th March.

Theistic Evolution 1. Recent research demonstra...

2010-01-02T07:44:51.182+09:00

Theistic Evolution

1. Recent research demonstrates higher semen viscosity in primate species that have a high degree of female promiscuity. In such species there is more intense sperm competition between rival male’s semen for the female’s attention. Natural selection encourages the evolution of increased sperm viscosity as an aid to preventing successful fertilisation of the female by subsequent male lovers. This means that promiscuity is a driving force in primate Evolution. If there is a God in charge of Evolution, then he is therefore condoning immorality by encouraging promiscuity.

2. 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. If God is in charge of Evolution he is therefore either a monumental blunderer, or an evil sadist, or a squanderer of natural resources.

3. All animals, plants, and fungi live by murder and cannibalism,- ie- feeding off each other;- humans are not exempt either. Could God not do better then this?

4. Some animals exhibit deliberate blood-sports lust, by toying with prey, or by unnecessary overkill; eg cats, and foxes. Did God arrange this? New-born pups are carried off by Jackels, Hyenas , birds of prey etc.

5. It is known by animal breeders ,eg of dogs, that specific desirable traits of appearance and behaviour can be produced by Artificial Selection within a few generations. If there is a Creator God whose goal was to produce an intelligent, conscious Human. He would and could have done this likewise, within a few generations of planned Artificial Selection; instead it has taken about 70 million years, (starting from the first Mammals),-of haphazard, multiple- path random production of humanoids to achieve a small proportion of rational beings,-eg (Scientists and Philosophers), amongst an otherwise irrational Human species.

6. Chimps have been discovered to have rudimentary culture and language, and tool use, and not to have any qualitatively different attributes from Humankind, and even better short-term memory than humans. They also commit deliberate murder on their fellows. Capuchin monkeys break open nuts with rocks. Corvids also use tools.

.

Hello Nathan, You are wrong: I do not assume ther...

2010-01-02T07:39:49.224+09:00

Hello Nathan,
You are wrong: I do not assume there is no God; I merely observe that the omnimax God is illogical and impossible, and observe further that there is no direct empirical evidence for one. You observe certain phenomena in the world, eg sun-sets, and by wishful thinking, assume that these phenomena are evidence for your God-they are not.
The burden of proof is on you, the person making the claim; it is not a 50:50 probability argument.
No,--there is just "Evolution". I have written an article on so-called "Theistic evolution", but it is (probably) too long to fit in here. I may try it as a separate post. Your lotto assertion is incoherent.
As you find it interesting, let me tell you that scientific evolution is overwhelmingly supported by logical and empirical evidence; we call such a thing a "fact" (at least provisionally). Evolution is observable, look at the evidence.
Why are you curious that I do not believe in your God? For one thing,-if I asked him to answer that question, he would not; he does not answer any questions because he does not exist. These arguments are stupid and futile and I am not going to be sucked into your fantasy world any further.
But I will try and post "Theistic Evolution", for your amusement.

Reg, I can see where you're coming from. Howev...

2010-01-02T01:06:17.342+09:00

Reg, I can see where you're coming from. However, you do the same thing with circular reasoning by assuming that there is no God.

I assume that there is a God, and argue from that perspective, where you argue from the perspective that there is no God. Thus we have a problem. That problem is that one of us is wrong.

Now there are three theories which may hold truth. There's the atheistic evolution, the theistic evolution, and creationism.

Do you play the lotto? I don't, I like something more solid. With atheistic evolution, you've got a one in a kazillion chance of being right. With theistic evolution or creationism, you've got a ((kazillion-1)/kazillion) chance of being right. I like probabilities like that, they're easy to win.

I personally don't care whether it's theistic evolution or creationism. In the long run it doesn't matter.

I do find it interesting how religions are regarded as superstitious, and 'scientific' evolution isn't. In order for science to be good it must be observable and be able to be performed multiple times. Evolution is neither. Macro-evolution has never been observed, and hasn't been re-performed.

I'm curious why it is you think that there is no God?

Nathan,--Admin is quite right. What you are doing...

2010-01-02T00:46:43.310+09:00

Nathan,--Admin is quite right. What you are doing is to say that your omnimax God of the Bible exists, and therefore he created everything. The biblical God has been defined into existence by the writers of the bible. He is not actually there, and so did not actually do anything.
If you use a presuppositionalist circular argument, and assume the existence of a creator God, then obviously a creator can create things; but you have not demonstrated his existence, so your logical argument is unsound.