Why do Christians hate Atheists?

[Moloch]

...
Or take a car for example. The car is complex. But the people who made it are way more complex.

There are so extremely many of examples of less complexity coming from greater complexity, and no examples of greater complexity coming from lesser complexity, that this is a law of the universe... at least until someone proves it wrong. They need to start by finding even one example.
...

That is why paying attention in biology class pays off.

I have two questions for you:

Do you know we are mammals? yes or no, please?

Do you know that we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees? yes or no, please?

I'm assuming you acknowledge the evolution since you are claiming God programmed it.

If you accept that live evolves from simpler live forms, you accept that life becomes more complex over time.

These are not necessarily yes or no questions.

We are considered mammalian by many.

Nobody has scientific proof that we have common ancestry with chimpanzees.

Life changes in some ways. The definition of evolve or evolution has only been assumed so far, but has not been given.

No proof? LOL!  The Wikipedia article is 25+ pages long, citing 192 different sources... not much proof there...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent


Topics include:
A) Genetics
1) Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns
2) DNA sequencing
3) Endogenous retroviruses
4) Proteins
5) Pseudogenes
6) Other mechanisms

a) Specific examples
1) Chromosome 2 in humans
2) Cytochrome c and b
3) Recent African origin of modern humans

B) Evidence from comparative anatomy
1) Atavisms
2) Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
3) Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
4) Nested hierarchies and classification
5) Vestigial structures

C) Evidence from paleontology
...

D) Evidence from geographic distribution
...

E) Evidence from selection
...

F) Evidence from speciation
...

G) Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration
...

Is that not enough for you?

[BADecker]

...
Or take a car for example. The car is complex. But the people who made it are way more complex.

There are so extremely many of examples of less complexity coming from greater complexity, and no examples of greater complexity coming from lesser complexity, that this is a law of the universe... at least until someone proves it wrong. They need to start by finding even one example.
...

That is why paying attention in biology class pays off.

I have two questions for you:

Do you know we are mammals? yes or no, please?

Do you know that we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees? yes or no, please?

I'm assuming you acknowledge the evolution since you are claiming God programmed it.

If you accept that live evolves from simpler live forms, you accept that life becomes more complex over time.

These are not necessarily yes or no questions.

We are considered mammalian by many.

Nobody has scientific proof that we have common ancestry with chimpanzees.

Life changes in some ways. The definition of evolve or evolution has only been assumed so far, but has not been given.

No proof? LOL!  The Wikipedia article is 25+ pages long, citing 192 different sources... not much proof there...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Read my lips. Theory of evolution. Not fact of evolution. Anybody can edit Wikipedia to say whatever he wants.   

[Moloch]

No proof? LOL!  The Wikipedia article is 25+ pages long, citing 192 different sources... not much proof there...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent


Topics include:
A) Genetics
1) Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns
2) DNA sequencing
3) Endogenous retroviruses
4) Proteins
5) Pseudogenes
6) Other mechanisms

a) Specific examples
1) Chromosome 2 in humans
2) Cytochrome c and b
3) Recent African origin of modern humans

B) Evidence from comparative anatomy
1) Atavisms
2) Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
3) Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
4) Nested hierarchies and classification
5) Vestigial structures

C) Evidence from paleontology
...

D) Evidence from geographic distribution
...

E) Evidence from selection
...

F) Evidence from speciation
...

G) Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration
...

Is that not enough for you?

Read my lips. Theory of evolution. Not fact of evolution. Anybody can edit Wikipedia to say whatever he wants.  

You seem to be stuck on the misunderstanding of the word theory... theory does not mean hypothesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

A theory can be normative (or prescriptive), meaning a postulation about what ought to be. It provides "goals, norms, and standards". A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge

The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact

[BADecker]

...
Life changes in some ways. The definition of evolve or evolution has only been assumed so far, but has not been given.

You think Lucy was more complex than us?
-------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

Here is a good reading on evolution, with pictures so that it is easier for you to understand:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life

You might want to investigate link to chimpanzees for yourself:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee

You will find that anybody who suggests that animals change via an evolution that is part of the process of going from the inanimate to the animate, is doing so by guesswork. There is no evolution process of this kind that has anywhere near all the holes filled, to show a clear, possible process.

Since God has been proven to exist, and since everything exists through cause and effect, whatever evolution exists has come about through pre-programming.

But I want to thank you for constantly bringing the same things up. It helps me get the answers in plce so that I can answer you easier each time.

[BADecker]

No proof? LOL!  The Wikipedia article is 25+ pages long, citing 192 different sources... not much proof there...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent


Topics include:
A) Genetics
1) Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns
2) DNA sequencing
3) Endogenous retroviruses
4) Proteins
5) Pseudogenes
6) Other mechanisms

a) Specific examples
1) Chromosome 2 in humans
2) Cytochrome c and b
3) Recent African origin of modern humans

B) Evidence from comparative anatomy
1) Atavisms
2) Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
3) Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
4) Nested hierarchies and classification
5) Vestigial structures

C) Evidence from paleontology
...

D) Evidence from geographic distribution
...

E) Evidence from selection
...

F) Evidence from speciation
...

G) Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration
...

Is that not enough for you?

Read my lips. Theory of evolution. Not fact of evolution. Anybody can edit Wikipedia to say whatever he wants.  

You seem to be stuck on the misunderstanding of the word theory... theory does not mean hypothesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

A theory can be normative (or prescriptive), meaning a postulation about what ought to be. It provides "goals, norms, and standards". A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge

The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact

Then again, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t says:

theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]


noun, plural theories.

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject:
number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice:
music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles:
conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

6. contemplation or speculation:
the theory that there is life on other planets.

7. guess or conjecture:
My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.

Idioms
8. in theory, ideally; hypothetically:
In theory, mapping the human genome may lead to thousands of cures.

All the definitions, even the ones you posted, have at least a factor of uncertainty in them.

[BADecker]

...
Life changes in some ways. The definition of evolve or evolution has only been assumed so far, but has not been given.

You think Lucy was more complex than us?
-------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

Here is a good reading on evolution, with pictures so that it is easier for you to understand:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life

You might want to investigate link to chimpanzees for yourself:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee

You will find that anybody who suggests that animals change via an evolution that is part of the process of going from the inanimate to the animate, is doing so by guesswork. There is no evolution process of this kind that has anywhere near all the holes filled, to show a clear, possible process.

Since God has been proven to exist, and since everything exists through cause and effect, whatever evolution exists has come about through pre-programming.

But I want to thank you for constantly bringing the same things up. It helps me get the answers in plce so that I can answer you easier each time.

Really?  Who proved it?

I showed you the 3 parts. I even showed that Newton proved one of the parts. If you really want to know, do the research.

[BADecker]

That is why you should not even try to understand science.  

Do you even know how science knowledge is being developed?

You proved you are ignorant of your own Bible, you ignore scientific facts, you misunderstand scientific terminology.  

And on top of that, you see God everywhere.  

 

Well, like it or not, I DO understand science. That's why you are focusing on me. Because it is you who don't understand science enough to even attempt to prove that God doesn't exist, or that my proofs of the existence of God are wrong.

[Moloch]

No proof? LOL!  The Wikipedia article is 25+ pages long, citing 192 different sources... not much proof there...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent


Topics include:
A) Genetics
1) Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns
2) DNA sequencing
3) Endogenous retroviruses
4) Proteins
5) Pseudogenes
6) Other mechanisms

a) Specific examples
1) Chromosome 2 in humans
2) Cytochrome c and b
3) Recent African origin of modern humans

B) Evidence from comparative anatomy
1) Atavisms
2) Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
3) Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
4) Nested hierarchies and classification
5) Vestigial structures

C) Evidence from paleontology
...

D) Evidence from geographic distribution
...

E) Evidence from selection
...

F) Evidence from speciation
...

G) Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration
...

Is that not enough for you?

Read my lips. Theory of evolution. Not fact of evolution. Anybody can edit Wikipedia to say whatever he wants.  

You seem to be stuck on the misunderstanding of the word theory... theory does not mean hypothesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

A theory can be normative (or prescriptive), meaning a postulation about what ought to be. It provides "goals, norms, and standards". A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge

The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact

Then again, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t says:

theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]


noun, plural theories.

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject:
number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice:
music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles:
conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

6. contemplation or speculation:
the theory that there is life on other planets.

7. guess or conjecture:
My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.

Idioms
8. in theory, ideally; hypothetically:
In theory, mapping the human genome may lead to thousands of cures.

All the definitions, even the ones you posted, have at least a factor of uncertainty in them.

There is no uncertainty. There are 2 different common uses of the word theory...

1) A colloquial idiom meaning a guess, hypothesis

Or

2) A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.


You are trying to imply "The Theory of Gravity" is just a guess... Which makes you look like a moron

[BADecker]

No proof? LOL!  The Wikipedia article is 25+ pages long, citing 192 different sources... not much proof there...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent


Topics include:
A) Genetics
1) Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns
2) DNA sequencing
3) Endogenous retroviruses
4) Proteins
5) Pseudogenes
6) Other mechanisms

a) Specific examples
1) Chromosome 2 in humans
2) Cytochrome c and b
3) Recent African origin of modern humans

B) Evidence from comparative anatomy
1) Atavisms
2) Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
3) Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
4) Nested hierarchies and classification
5) Vestigial structures

C) Evidence from paleontology
...

D) Evidence from geographic distribution
...

E) Evidence from selection
...

F) Evidence from speciation
...

G) Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration
...

Is that not enough for you?

Read my lips. Theory of evolution. Not fact of evolution. Anybody can edit Wikipedia to say whatever he wants.  

You seem to be stuck on the misunderstanding of the word theory... theory does not mean hypothesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

A theory can be normative (or prescriptive), meaning a postulation about what ought to be. It provides "goals, norms, and standards". A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge

The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact

Then again, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t says:

theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]


noun, plural theories.

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject:
number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice:
music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles:
conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

6. contemplation or speculation:
the theory that there is life on other planets.

7. guess or conjecture:
My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.

Idioms
8. in theory, ideally; hypothetically:
In theory, mapping the human genome may lead to thousands of cures.

All the definitions, even the ones you posted, have at least a factor of uncertainty in them.

There is no uncertainty. There are 2 different common uses of the word theory...

1) A colloquial idiom meaning a guess, hypothesis

Or

2) A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.


You are trying to imply "The Theory of Gravity" is just a guess... Which makes you look like a moron

Now why are you suggesting that I am implying anything? I gave you the dictionary defs, above.

Sounds more and more like you are acting the part of a troll. However, you are a bit humorous. Besides, good typing practice for me.

 

[eon89]

And of course that he's going to start with definitions in order to avoid acknowledging that he has no proof.

[mainpmf]

And of course that he's going to start with definitions in order to avoid acknowledging that he has no proof.

BADecker already stated:
- chaos does not exist, chaos theory does exist, but chaos does not
- God does not need a cause, everything thing else in this and other universes need a cause
- theory of gravity is a law, but other scientific theories are just hypothesis
- more complex life forms cannot evolve from simpler ones because entropy in the universe does not decrease
- evolution is just a theory not a fact, despite of an overwhelming physical evidence
- big bang did not happen, instead God created universe in 6 days
- he is not sure if we are mammals, I guess he did not suck on his mother breasts
- he is sure we did not evolve from a common ancestor as chimpanzees, despite the fact we share 98% of DNA

these are just at the top of my head.  I'm sure there are more.  The more he posts the more nonsense he spouts.

And his proof that God exists is that the world is just too complex for it to happen by chance.

BADecker is an idiot gotten confuse between Scientific irrevelancy for no reason and absurd faith for no reason...

[youdamushi]

...
Or take a car for example. The car is complex. But the people who made it are way more complex.

There are so extremely many of examples of less complexity coming from greater complexity, and no examples of greater complexity coming from lesser complexity, that this is a law of the universe... at least until someone proves it wrong. They need to start by finding even one example.
...

That is why paying attention in biology class pays off.

I have two questions for you:

Do you know we are mammals? yes or no, please?

Do you know that we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees? yes or no, please?

I'm assuming you acknowledge the evolution since you are claiming God programmed it.

If you accept that live evolves from simpler live forms, you accept that life becomes more complex over time.

These are not necessarily yes or no questions.

We are considered mammalian by many.

Nobody has scientific proof that we have common ancestry with chimpanzees.

Life changes in some ways. The definition of evolve or evolution has only been assumed so far, but has not been given.

You mean apart from genetics and physical caracteristics?

Well what do you want as proofs. We've got all the evidence you need you just have to ask!

[mrflibblehat]

Maybe if they'll print it in the Bible. That would make him believe it. It would be the ultimate proof for him.

[mrflibblehat]

Maybe if they'll print it in the Bible. That would make him believe it. It would be the ultimate proof for him.

Problem is that they cannot reconcile evolution with Bible because according to it, God created man in his own image.

Well, if we share common ancestor with chimpanzees than that ancestor must have been God.  And he is the one who created universe.
Straight out of Africa :-) Even that will not make sense, because they say God created, not descended.  But then again what can you expect
from bronze age God.

Those Christians who accept evolution are not really Christians, more like Pantheists, they are on the road to Atheism.

I was brought up in Roman Catholic religion, never payed attention to religion dogma, just went along for the sake of family and friends.
I suspect most religious people follow religion for similar reasons. 

What really opened my eyes was not the Bible but Quran.  Because of the problems in Middle East, I started reading Quran just out of curiosity.
What a bunch of poetic nonsense? Then I turned to Bible.  It was worse, especially the Old Testament.

How can religious people follow this nonsense?  Fear.  Fear of being rejected by their family and friends.  For those super delusional, fear of going to hell,
fear of not going to heaven etc.  Emotional center of their brain is shutting down the logical part.  It is a survival instinct.  We avoid what we perceive to be a dangerous situation.  That mechanism helped us be who we are today:  Home Sapiens. The great African Ape that rules the world.

Problem is that they cannot reconcile the Bible with the Bible. There are so many contradictions in there I don't even know where to start.

[mainpmf]

Maybe if they'll print it in the Bible. That would make him believe it. It would be the ultimate proof for him.

Problem is that they cannot reconcile evolution with Bible because according to it, God created man in his own image.

Well, if we share common ancestor with chimpanzees than that ancestor must have been God.  And he is the one who created universe.
Straight out of Africa :-) Even that will not make sense, because they say God created, not descended.  But then again what can you expect
from bronze age God.

Those Christians who accept evolution are not really Christians, more like Pantheists, they are on the road to Atheism.

I was brought up in Roman Catholic religion, never payed attention to religion dogma, just went along for the sake of family and friends.
I suspect most religious people follow religion for similar reasons. 

What really opened my eyes was not the Bible but Quran.  Because of the problems in Middle East, I started reading Quran just out of curiosity.
What a bunch of poetic nonsense? Then I turned to Bible.  It was worse, especially the Old Testament.

How can religious people follow this nonsense?  Fear.  Fear of being rejected by their family and friends.  For those super delusional, fear of going to hell,
fear of not going to heaven etc.  Emotional center of their brain is shutting down the logical part.  It is a survival instinct.  We avoid what we perceive to be a dangerous situation.  That mechanism helped us be who we are today:  Home Sapiens. The great African Ape that rules the world.

Problem is that they cannot reconcile the Bible with the Bible. There are so many contradictions in there I don't even know where to start.

You can start here
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

[mrflibblehat]

Maybe if they'll print it in the Bible. That would make him believe it. It would be the ultimate proof for him.

Problem is that they cannot reconcile evolution with Bible because according to it, God created man in his own image.

Well, if we share common ancestor with chimpanzees than that ancestor must have been God.  And he is the one who created universe.
Straight out of Africa :-) Even that will not make sense, because they say God created, not descended.  But then again what can you expect
from bronze age God.

Those Christians who accept evolution are not really Christians, more like Pantheists, they are on the road to Atheism.

I was brought up in Roman Catholic religion, never payed attention to religion dogma, just went along for the sake of family and friends.
I suspect most religious people follow religion for similar reasons. 

What really opened my eyes was not the Bible but Quran.  Because of the problems in Middle East, I started reading Quran just out of curiosity.
What a bunch of poetic nonsense? Then I turned to Bible.  It was worse, especially the Old Testament.

How can religious people follow this nonsense?  Fear.  Fear of being rejected by their family and friends.  For those super delusional, fear of going to hell,
fear of not going to heaven etc.  Emotional center of their brain is shutting down the logical part.  It is a survival instinct.  We avoid what we perceive to be a dangerous situation.  That mechanism helped us be who we are today:  Home Sapiens. The great African Ape that rules the world.

Problem is that they cannot reconcile the Bible with the Bible. There are so many contradictions in there I don't even know where to start.

You can start here
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Yeah, it was rhetorical. But I'm sure our religious friends will ignore the link whatsoever. Because it might just prove them wrong.

[BADecker]

...
Or take a car for example. The car is complex. But the people who made it are way more complex.

There are so extremely many of examples of less complexity coming from greater complexity, and no examples of greater complexity coming from lesser complexity, that this is a law of the universe... at least until someone proves it wrong. They need to start by finding even one example.
...

That is why paying attention in biology class pays off.

I have two questions for you:

Do you know we are mammals? yes or no, please?

Do you know that we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees? yes or no, please?

I'm assuming you acknowledge the evolution since you are claiming God programmed it.

If you accept that live evolves from simpler live forms, you accept that life becomes more complex over time.

These are not necessarily yes or no questions.

We are considered mammalian by many.

Nobody has scientific proof that we have common ancestry with chimpanzees.

Life changes in some ways. The definition of evolve or evolution has only been assumed so far, but has not been given.

You mean apart from genetics and physical caracteristics?

Well what do you want as proofs. We've got all the evidence you need you just have to ask!

The evidence can be interpreted in other ways. Because of this, it is not really evidence.

[craked5]

...
Or take a car for example. The car is complex. But the people who made it are way more complex.

There are so extremely many of examples of less complexity coming from greater complexity, and no examples of greater complexity coming from lesser complexity, that this is a law of the universe... at least until someone proves it wrong. They need to start by finding even one example.
...

That is why paying attention in biology class pays off.

I have two questions for you:

Do you know we are mammals? yes or no, please?

Do you know that we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees? yes or no, please?

I'm assuming you acknowledge the evolution since you are claiming God programmed it.

If you accept that live evolves from simpler live forms, you accept that life becomes more complex over time.

These are not necessarily yes or no questions.

We are considered mammalian by many.

Nobody has scientific proof that we have common ancestry with chimpanzees.

Life changes in some ways. The definition of evolve or evolution has only been assumed so far, but has not been given.

You mean apart from genetics and physical caracteristics?

Well what do you want as proofs. We've got all the evidence you need you just have to ask!

The evidence can be interpreted in other ways. Because of this, it is not really evidence.

LOL!

Ok how do you interprete the fact that we got all those similarities with Chimpanze?

[craked5]

Maybe if they'll print it in the Bible. That would make him believe it. It would be the ultimate proof for him.

Problem is that they cannot reconcile evolution with Bible because according to it, God created man in his own image.

Well, if we share common ancestor with chimpanzees than that ancestor must have been God.  And he is the one who created universe.
Straight out of Africa :-) Even that will not make sense, because they say God created, not descended.  But then again what can you expect
from bronze age God.

Those Christians who accept evolution are not really Christians, more like Pantheists, they are on the road to Atheism.

I was brought up in Roman Catholic religion, never payed attention to religion dogma, just went along for the sake of family and friends.
I suspect most religious people follow religion for similar reasons. 

What really opened my eyes was not the Bible but Quran.  Because of the problems in Middle East, I started reading Quran just out of curiosity.
What a bunch of poetic nonsense? Then I turned to Bible.  It was worse, especially the Old Testament.

How can religious people follow this nonsense?  Fear.  Fear of being rejected by their family and friends.  For those super delusional, fear of going to hell,
fear of not going to heaven etc.  Emotional center of their brain is shutting down the logical part.  It is a survival instinct.  We avoid what we perceive to be a dangerous situation.  That mechanism helped us be who we are today:  Home Sapiens. The great African Ape that rules the world.

Problem is that they cannot reconcile the Bible with the Bible. There are so many contradictions in there I don't even know where to start.

You can start here
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Yeah, it was rhetorical. But I'm sure our religious friends will ignore the link whatsoever. Because it might just prove them wrong.

Most people would stop at the creation story:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light (worked in the dark for most of day 1, Earth before stars? I guess because Earth was the center of the universe :-))
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(just like that, no atmosphere)
Day 3: Plants (they are special one's, they don't need Sun light)
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendar and navigational aids)  (finally the Sun and other stars, poor plants, they had to wait)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.) (skipped bacteria and single cell organisms, I guess no microscopes were available in bronze age, so God did not know they existed)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time, why not, you need sex, more on that in the rest of the book)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off and has been silent ever since)

The worst part is probably after the end of Eden when they all fuck with each other in an infamous incest story cause you know Eve is the only woman and she gives birth to boys only sooooooooo...

[BADecker]

...
Or take a car for example. The car is complex. But the people who made it are way more complex.

There are so extremely many of examples of less complexity coming from greater complexity, and no examples of greater complexity coming from lesser complexity, that this is a law of the universe... at least until someone proves it wrong. They need to start by finding even one example.
...

That is why paying attention in biology class pays off.

I have two questions for you:

Do you know we are mammals? yes or no, please?

Do you know that we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees? yes or no, please?

I'm assuming you acknowledge the evolution since you are claiming God programmed it.

If you accept that live evolves from simpler live forms, you accept that life becomes more complex over time.

These are not necessarily yes or no questions.

We are considered mammalian by many.

Nobody has scientific proof that we have common ancestry with chimpanzees.

Life changes in some ways. The definition of evolve or evolution has only been assumed so far, but has not been given.

You mean apart from genetics and physical caracteristics?

Well what do you want as proofs. We've got all the evidence you need you just have to ask!

The evidence can be interpreted in other ways. Because of this, it is not really evidence.

How else can you interpret 98.8 percent?

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/human-origins-and-cultural-halls/anne-and-bernard-spitzer-hall-of-human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps

Virtually all life is in the range of 97% or less.

Just because cars have wheels, and most cars have 4 wheels, and even motorcycles and bicycles have 2 wheels, doesn't mean that they all evolved from the same inorganic round rock.