benners

as an atheist i must disagree. Atheism, being based on knowledge and research, would be incomplete if the "works of God" we're not adding into the equation. Yet, the conclusion is still "God, no thank you" Huh? Would be incomplete? So, you say that atheism is a complete and utter perfection? Without God muddying up your elaborate concoctions of "truth" you would be without opposition? First, I didn't intend the qoute "works of God" to be taken as literal. I ment that most atheist have read scripture, the bible, ect. Which means atheist don't "refused to read it," but have absorbed atleast the general education of the christian literature and preaching, to which they found it very and highly improbable. Wasn't talking about the Bible---I was referring to the fact that God's hand is visible in all things! His signature is on everything. I was referring to that as well

didn't the guy just say that he wasn't calling God unintelligent. and we are smart enough to figure it out, we got a pretty good answer on the subject, it's just hard for some people to understand.

Shale and sandstone are heavy and dense? Peace, Dave Try this one at home. Pick up a large piece of shale or sandstone, take a big bucket (any amount, doesn't matter) of water and pore it continuously. Check if it wares down. But seriously, the rocks found at the base of the grand canyon date back 40 billion years ago, while the top layer can be dated back to the last 1000 years the same can go for ice slates in the antarctic, that's actually a more accurate depiction of the earth's timeline

first. correcting someone's grammar isn't belittling, its an educational habit. sorry. second. yes i agree with you that three legged frogs, if not caused by a virus (maybe even so), is a possible sign of evolution. if an animal thrives better with a new mutation then it will survive better than the previous version. From my knowledge, all three legged frogs die quickly, if not right after they hatch. Both of those are signs of natural selection, the prequal to evolution. third, the grand canyon. my bad, its not all granite, yet those materials shown on that website are dense, heavy and do provide historical evidence that they have existed much longer than 6000 years. none the less, the point is that there is no way that water can wear down any of those materials over the span of a couple of days. fourth. i am upset that your admin Dave eliminated my links to atheist websites in my signature. The first thing people have to learn is that atheism isn't anti-christian as Dave mentioned in his email. Our belief contradicts your belief, that's just how it works.

what? no. that sounds like mindless babble. thats not what atheism is about at all. we don't praise ourselves or the things around us, if anything we praise science, knowledge, and the on going understanding of our universe. I understand having a more profound respect for everything around us, but I feel that stamping God onto everything is an archaic bandade of an answer to something that frankly doesn't have an answer. I hate it when people try to translate atheism to have any theist connections.

There is no scientific evidence of evolution though, fossils, whats funny is that in fossils dates you will find older fossils on top of the newer ones with carbon dating, Evolution is not based on science, but the philosophy of man, and mans word, everything in the bible is accurate, and as far as carbon datings predating the bible, really search it, cause the carbon datings just prove more so that the bible is accurate, but from an atheist point of view, take God out, and you get we came from monkeys, Hey God is real, not just our minds, if your doubting, and falling away, ask him yourself. ...there's no scientific evidence of evolution? There are the fossil records, any situation where an older fossil is above a newer one has been explained (if you doubt this, please point me to an older fossil above a newer one, and I'll do my best to explain how that happened.) Evolution is absolutely based on science. The theory was developed with the scientific method, it has plenty of evidence backing it up, and it explains so many things we see in nature. Stuff like organs or bones that exist in animals that aren't used, because they're left over from whatever creature the animal evolved from. I haven't seen how carbon dating proves the bible at all, could you please show me where you get that idea? We can still come from monkeys and God, God could have started life and the process of evolution, why must the two be seperate? Hahaha, darwin himself says it's impossible to believe in God and evolution, lol I believe in creation, and honestly, search for it, there is no proof of evolution, there is proof that animals and humans adapt to their enviroments to survive, which that change is verticly(I dont even know what to change here), but there is no proof that we evolved from another animal, nothing, thats the whole missing link, well if molecules where made and created sea life, there are no fossils of these one celled organisms, but there is evidence that the first forms of life, where birds and sea life, well read genesis chap 1, hmm ok, the first living thing created was Sea life and birds, second then came beasts from the land, well thats the second living thing created in gen. hmm then it all evolved into man, well man was created after that. Ya know you cannot find a missing link fossil, the whole skull they found, well only about 1% was a human skull, the 99% was actually made from pigs bones, there is no proof, now they have proved there was a flood, but nothing about evolution, evolution is speculation, and philosophy, trying to explain life without a creator. ALl tests, and procedures where inconclusive, and hold no direct fast other than an animal will adapt over time to survive it's enviroment. This is ridiculous. We've found plenty of missing link fossils, including one found not more than a month ago in Ethiopia that shared characteristics found only in humans and only in apes. A child and a mother were found together which is vital evidence. The child shows that its brain developed slowly, which is found only in humans, yet had bent fingers and the arms similar to a primate. The physical characteristics were shared in the mother, showing a genetic trail. There has even been a LIVE CAPTURE of an animal still having the remnants of evolution. The dolphin found near Japan I believe had hind legs found in land animals. Evolution doesn't have to go in a definite direction. If the species, for whatever reason, become aquatic, the same can be said vice versa. edit links* Any person who's taken any science class knows that fossils of single celled organisms do exist and any science teacher can point you in the direction of one. Oh and about that "flood" you are talking about. The one creationists use as their "scientific base" is the fabrication. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates use the grand canyon as an example that it was carved out in one day. *Edit comments* The grand canyon is made out of granite people, granite takes millions of years to break down, not a whole ton of water from some mystery lakes. The person responsible for that statement is a 60 year old creationist named Dwayne Gish (I don't know how to spell his name) who hasn't picked up a text book since the 1950s. Science isn't democratic. Deal with it. I also decided to correct all your bad grammar. jeez that was bad

as an atheist i must disagree. Atheism, being based on knowledge and research, would be incomplete if the "works of God" we're not adding into the equation. Yet, the conclusion is still "God, no thank you" Huh? Would be incomplete? So, you say that atheism is a complete and utter perfection? Without God muddying up your elaborate concoctions of "truth" you would be without opposition? First, I didn't intend the qoute "works of God" to be taken as literal. I ment that most atheist have read scripture, the bible, ect. Which means atheist don't "refused to read it," but have absorbed atleast the general education of the christian literature and preaching, to which they found it very and highly improbable.

as an atheist i must disagree. Atheism, being based on knowledge and research, would be incomplete if the "works of God" we're not adding into the equation. Yet, the conclusion is still "God, no thank you"