Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BADecker]

Actually, part of the scientific proof for the existence of God is some of what destroys evolution.

Wait, what?!?  "Science has proof for the existence of God"?!?  This must be a breaking news story from every media outlet on the planet... why haven't I heard of this?

Please provide a source for such incredible news!

Wouldn't do you any good. You wouldn't understand it. But if by some chance you happened to understand, you would fight it intentionally, just like you are doing now.

Translation...

Pot: "Hey kettle, are you there?"
Kettle: "What do you want stoner?"
Pot: "You're black... like the darkness!"

Just to show you how corrupt the system promoting evolution is, from http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults:

#14 Anything that we dig up that is supposedly more than 250,000 years old should have absolutely no radiocarbon in it whatsoever.  But instead, we find it in everything that we dig up – even dinosaur bones.  This is clear evidence that the “millions of years” theory is simply a bunch of nonsense…

    "It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old. For instance, CMI has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and Journal of Creation. In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem."

    "In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data. The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years."

And here you are, opting to keep on believing in your false religion, the evolution system.

[1714278578]

1714278578

[1714278578]

1714278578

[1714278578]

1714278578

[Holdaaja]

There's a God and we do not need science to prove His existence to us

This is true. The idea is to show atheists that God exists in language they understand, before they die in their sins. Obviously, many of them will simply pull back into their shell rather than seek God and a joyful eternal life in Heaven. But a few of them will turn. And many border-line Christians will see how God truly DOES exist, and will be strengthened in their Christianity.

How did you choose to believe in christianity in the first place?

[BADecker]

There's a God and we do not need science to prove His existence to us

This is true. The idea is to show atheists that God exists in language they understand, before they die in their sins. Obviously, many of them will simply pull back into their shell rather than seek God and a joyful eternal life in Heaven. But a few of them will turn. And many border-line Christians will see how God truly DOES exist, and will be strengthened in their Christianity.

How did you choose to believe in christianity in the first place?

I heard God's words from the Bible. The Holy Spirit worked faith in my heart. I happened to not be one of the obstinate ones who was so stubborn that I had the ability to resist the Holy Spirit. Rather, at that time I was weak in spiritual strength.

Perhaps my obstinacy has grown. Perhaps if I didn't see the logic of God now that I have experience with Him, I might resist Him along with the atheists.

[BADecker]

More proof against evolution from http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults:

#15 The odds of even a single sell “assembling itself” by chance are so low that they aren’t even worth talking about.  The following is an excerpt from Jonathan Gray’s book entitled “The Forbidden Secret“…

    "Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.

    "Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.

    "'Now,' explained Larry, 'to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!'

    "'To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!'

    "'It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.'"

The odds against evolution happening are greater than the odds for breaking the Bitcoin blockchain.

[BADecker]

More proof against evolution from http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults:

#27 Evolutionists would have us believe that there are nice, neat fossil layers with older fossils being found in the deepest layers and newer fossils being found in the newest layers.  This simply is not true at all…

    "The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced (“younger” and “older” layers found in repeating sequences). “Out of place” fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record."

 

[Holdaaja]

More proof against evolution from http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults:

Here is 2x more proof for evolution http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/

[BADecker]

More proof against evolution from http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults:

Here is 2x more proof for evolution http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/

Many of the points at the site you linked are simply statements. Some of them have been refuted far more strongly at "44 Reasons" than they have been stated at "Evolution 101." It would be interesting to do a comparison.

I wonder how much the scientists involved see things the way they want rather than what is logically there.

[BADecker]

More proof against evolution from http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults:

#35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…

    "When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.

    "Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied."

[BADecker]

Science proves evolution is false- Atheist is crushed by science - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2M0XQnqfNY.

[organofcorti]

More proof against evolution from http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults:

#35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…

    "When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.

    "Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied."

(font edited for size)

Why is it "absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself"? You haven't provided any proof that this is not possible, just opinion.

[Moloch]

Many of the points at the site you linked are simply statements. Some of them have been refuted far more strongly at "44 Reasons" than they have been stated at "Evolution 101." It would be interesting to do a comparison.

I wonder how much the scientists involved see things the way they want rather than what is logically there.

Do you also believe the banana is proof of God?
Behold the Atheist's Nightmare

If so, how do you explain the coconut, or the pineapple?

Science has a different expectation when it comes to words like "proof" and "evidence" than religion...

[BADecker]

More proof against evolution from http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults:

#35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…

    "When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.

    "Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied."

Why is it "absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself"? You haven't provided any proof that this is not possible, just opinion.

The odds, man. The odds.

Why do you attempt to express your ignorance all the time? Actually, I don't really care. But you are getting really good at it.

See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg13757570#msg13757570 for the answer to your question.

[BADecker]

Many of the points at the site you linked are simply statements. Some of them have been refuted far more strongly at "44 Reasons" than they have been stated at "Evolution 101." It would be interesting to do a comparison.

I wonder how much the scientists involved see things the way they want rather than what is logically there.

Do you also believe the banana is proof of God?
Behold the Atheist's Nightmare

If so, how do you explain the coconut, or the pineapple?

Science has a different expectation when it comes to words like "proof" and "evidence" than religion...

All by itself, the banana may not be proof of God. But, it is way more proof of God than it is proof of evolution.

Why do you ask me to explain coconuts and pineapples? You can find all kinds of information about them if you do an Internet search. Of course, if you don't know this by now, it probably doesn't do any good to tell you.

Yes. The science religion has different ... than other religions.

[Moloch]

Many of the points at the site you linked are simply statements. Some of them have been refuted far more strongly at "44 Reasons" than they have been stated at "Evolution 101." It would be interesting to do a comparison.

I wonder how much the scientists involved see things the way they want rather than what is logically there.

Do you also believe the banana is proof of God?
Behold the Atheist's Nightmare

If so, how do you explain the coconut, or the pineapple?

Science has a different expectation when it comes to words like "proof" and "evidence" than religion...

All by itself, the banana may not be proof of God. But, it is way more proof of God than it is proof of evolution.

Why do you ask me to explain coconuts and pineapples? You can find all kinds of information about them if you do an Internet search. Of course, if you don't know this by now, it probably doesn't do any good to tell you.

Yes. The science religion has different ... than other religions.

You might understand the joke if you would click the link and watch the 1 minute video made by Christians (spoiler: one of them is Kirk Cameron)

"If you study a well-made banana..."

"God has placed a tab at the top like a soda can"

"The wrapper is bio-degradable" (no shit.. its a banana!)

Pure comedy... hence the question about the pineapple... not so human-friendly as a banana

[BADecker]

Many of the points at the site you linked are simply statements. Some of them have been refuted far more strongly at "44 Reasons" than they have been stated at "Evolution 101." It would be interesting to do a comparison.

I wonder how much the scientists involved see things the way they want rather than what is logically there.

Do you also believe the banana is proof of God?
Behold the Atheist's Nightmare

If so, how do you explain the coconut, or the pineapple?

Science has a different expectation when it comes to words like "proof" and "evidence" than religion...

All by itself, the banana may not be proof of God. But, it is way more proof of God than it is proof of evolution.

Why do you ask me to explain coconuts and pineapples? You can find all kinds of information about them if you do an Internet search. Of course, if you don't know this by now, it probably doesn't do any good to tell you.

Yes. The science religion has different ... than other religions.

You might understand the joke if you would click the link and watch the 1 minute video made by Christians (spoiler: one of them is Kirk Cameron)

"If you study a well-made banana..."

"God has placed a tab at the top like a soda can"

"The wrapper is bio-degradable" (no shit.. its a banana!)

My video is down right now. Maybe later.   

[organofcorti]

More proof against evolution from http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults:

#35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…

    "When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.

    "Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied."

Why is it "absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself"? You haven't provided any proof that this is not possible, just opinion.

The odds, man. The odds.

What odds? You provide no odds that this couldn't happen naturally. And why odds - why not a likelihood or different probability measure? You just think it's unlikely, but it's not a provable assertion. You're probably making assumptions based on intuition, but this means you're just expressing an opinion, not any provable assertion.

Why do you attempt to express your ignorance all the time? Actually, I don't really care. But you are getting really good at it.

Well quelle surprise -- I ask for proof of an strongly stated assertion and you once again respond with an ad-hominem attack in order to avoid expressing your own ignorance in matters of statistical analysis.

Why have a conversation if you'll only converse with people who already know what you know and have nothing to learn? What would the point be? Shouldn't ignorance of a fact be a teaching opportunity?

[BADecker]

More proof against evolution from http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults:

#35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…

    "When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.

    "Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied."

Why is it "absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself"? You haven't provided any proof that this is not possible, just opinion.

The odds, man. The odds.

What odds? You provide no odds that this couldn't happen naturally. And why odds - why not a likelihood or different probability measure? You just think it's unlikely, but it's not a provable assertion. You're probably making assumptions based on intuition, but this means you're just expressing an opinion, not any provable assertion.

Okay. You got me. I certainly can't make you look at the Bitcoitalk post that has the odds. All I can do is point it out to you, like I did. 

Why do you attempt to express your ignorance all the time? Actually, I don't really care. But you are getting really good at it.

Well quelle surprise -- I ask for proof of an strongly stated assertion and you once again respond with an ad-hominem attack in order to avoid expressing your own ignorance in matters of statistical analysis.

Why have a conversation if you'll only converse with people who already know what you know and have nothing to learn? What would the point be? Shouldn't ignorance of a fact be a teaching opportunity?

I know, I know. It is completely my mistake for assuming that you have the ability to navigate websites, and think.

Just curious. Do you do your own keyboard work when you post in this forum? The reason I ask is, the keyboard work seems to be a lot better than the thinking that is behind what you say.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not tearing down your character. I'm simply saying it like it is. Low IQ isn't something that is bad. It is what it is. That's all. You are a wonderful human being, I'm sure, even though you seem to have such an inability to handle navigating this forum... or whatever your problem is.

[organofcorti]

More proof against evolution from http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults:

#35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…

    "When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.

    "Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied."

Why is it "absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself"? You haven't provided any proof that this is not possible, just opinion.

The odds, man. The odds.

What odds? You provide no odds that this couldn't happen naturally. And why odds - why not a likelihood or different probability measure? You just think it's unlikely, but it's not a provable assertion. You're probably making assumptions based on intuition, but this means you're just expressing an opinion, not any provable assertion.

Okay. You got me. I certainly can't make you look at the Bitcoitalk post that has the odds. All I can do is point it out to you, like I did.  

Sure, I looked at the post, but it's just you quoting someone else. I wanted you to explain how this person derived those odds, because the explanation given in the post is incomplete. Obviously I can't discuss this with the author, but since you're certain this is correct you must understand it, so I'm discussing it with you.

Why do you attempt to express your ignorance all the time? Actually, I don't really care. But you are getting really good at it.

Well quelle surprise -- I ask for proof of an strongly stated assertion and you once again respond with an ad-hominem attack in order to avoid expressing your own ignorance in matters of statistical analysis.

Why have a conversation if you'll only converse with people who already know what you know and have nothing to learn? What would the point be? Shouldn't ignorance of a fact be a teaching opportunity?

I know, I know. It is completely my mistake for assuming that you have the ability to navigate websites, and think.

Of course that is a valid assumption. I have the ability to navigate websites and to think. This of course does nothing to prove any of your points.

Just curious. Do you do your own keyboard work when you post in this forum? The reason I ask is, the keyboard work seems to be a lot better than the thinking that is behind what you say.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not tearing down your character. I'm simply saying it like it is. Low IQ isn't something that is bad. It is what it is. That's all. You are a wonderful human being, I'm sure, even though you seem to have such an inability to handle navigating this forum... or whatever your problem is.

Another ad-hominem attack. Do you have a wider set of logical fallacies that you prefer, or do you just stick with special pleading and ad-hominem attacks?

[BADecker]

More proof against evolution from http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults:

#35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…

    "When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.

    "Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied."

Why is it "absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself"? You haven't provided any proof that this is not possible, just opinion.

The odds, man. The odds.

What odds? You provide no odds that this couldn't happen naturally. And why odds - why not a likelihood or different probability measure? You just think it's unlikely, but it's not a provable assertion. You're probably making assumptions based on intuition, but this means you're just expressing an opinion, not any provable assertion.

Okay. You got me. I certainly can't make you look at the Bitcoitalk post that has the odds. All I can do is point it out to you, like I did.  

Sure, I looked at the post, but it's just you quoting someone else. I wanted you to explain how this person derived those odds, because the explanation given in the post is incomplete. Obviously I can't discuss this with the author, but since you're certain this is correct you must understand it, so I'm discussing it with you.

Why do you attempt to express your ignorance all the time? Actually, I don't really care. But you are getting really good at it.

Well quelle surprise -- I ask for proof of an strongly stated assertion and you once again respond with an ad-hominem attack in order to avoid expressing your own ignorance in matters of statistical analysis.

Why have a conversation if you'll only converse with people who already know what you know and have nothing to learn? What would the point be? Shouldn't ignorance of a fact be a teaching opportunity?

I know, I know. It is completely my mistake for assuming that you have the ability to navigate websites, and think.

Of course that is a valid assumption. I have the ability to navigate websites and to think. This of course does nothing to prove any of your points.

Just curious. Do you do your own keyboard work when you post in this forum? The reason I ask is, the keyboard work seems to be a lot better than the thinking that is behind what you say.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not tearing down your character. I'm simply saying it like it is. Low IQ isn't something that is bad. It is what it is. That's all. You are a wonderful human being, I'm sure, even though you seem to have such an inability to handle navigating this forum... or whatever your problem is.

Another ad-hominem attack. Do you have a wider set of logical fallacies that you prefer, or do you just stick with special pleading and ad-hominem attacks?

Obviously, you are not very interested. If you were, you would go out and do your own investigating.

[mOgliE]

This has nothing to do with your god.

It's only a question of biology and evolution... You claim your god is behind the evolution process?

Evolution!?  Now, there's a joke. All the proven things that are called "evolution," can also be demonstrated to be "programming." Presently, there isn't enough evolution fact around that shows how anything could have developed from scratch by evolution. And if somebody DID happen to show an evolution process that had no holes in it, so that it was absolutely possible for something to have come about by evolution, there is STILL no way to prove that this is what really DID happen.

Furthermore, nowhere in the universe have we found anything that is greater being produced by something that is lesser. There is much scientific speculation about this. But it is not seen anywhere. In fact the opposite is the only thing that we see.

Everything has to do with my God... the God of creation.

So you're denying the idea of evolution?

Well I understand better xD
Evolution is not just a "theory". It has been proven through Darwin's experiments then verified by multiple different scientists. It's through the evolution principles are the base of multiple scientific progresses.

How can I be denying the idea of evolution when I am talking about it? As usual, you are not thinking clearly. The idea of evolution makes for fun thinking and stimulation. Think of all the science fiction stories that would never have existed if the idea of evolution was not around. Besides, it's in the textbooks. I'd have to have been a hermit on mountain all my life to deny the idea.

The term "evolution" has come to mean many things to many people. Some of these might be truth. But many of them are not. Because of this, when you say that evolution has been proven, you are wrong, except that you explain the particular definitions and applications of the term "evolution" where it might happen to be exist factually. Darwin's experiments never came close to proving evolution. Even Darwin, himself, doubted his own work. Read the things that he says.

"Evolution" as a principle where more complex life comes about from less complex life is completely flawed. Such a thing doesn't happen in nature that anybody has been able to find. When a scientist creates evolution under laboratory conditions, it is complex life (the scientist) making less complex material to become more complex material.

The evolution principle that over time one species of creature becomes a different species is completely flawed. There aren't any missing links that can be proven such in the fossil record. People may theorize. People may hope. But in the end, there is no proof.

The evolution principle that inorganic material became life is completely flawed. Not only is there no evidence of such happening, we complex humans can't even make it happen in the laboratory.

So, what is your definition or application that is termed "evolution" that actually works?

Well... I don't know if you ever tried to read anything about evolution... Seems to me you didn't. Otherwise you would know that evolution is largely proven, that we managed to list each and every species in a precise evolution order and that everythin matches with such perfection that it would be incredible that this theory is flawed as you say.

But that means you believe humans were created the way they are now? So that we didn't evolve from a common ancestor with great apes? And when was the humanity created?

Not only that, but I even read "Planet of the Apes" book, saw the movie, saw a couple of the sequels, and read the some of the papers on evolution. Actual papers on evolution only suggest that evolution might be fact. Much media says it is fact. Have you seen it in "Enquirer?"

So I'm going to ask again:
What do you believe? That humanity was created from stone 5 000 years ago?