The Resurrection and the Death of Atheism

Well that is the way his followers behave.

Are you willing to say he is wrong - on ANYTHING?

 

This is almost certainly true, there are studies to indicate that as the social welfare within a society increases the need for religion declines. Hence we see the highly developed Scandinavian countries showing a sharp decline in religious belief whilst the US which has not developed social welfare remains the most religious developed country. It is not Post Capitalism but post capitalism with social welfare.

Not true, by far the largest group of non believers are the apathetic, there is simply no need for religion in the reality that people live in, the universe will indeed carry on as it has always did with people just forgetting about the gods of old, just as people have largely forgotten the old gods of the Greeks and Romans, gods will die with a whimper.

 

The main problem with this argument is that it assumes abiogenesis was a totally random process.

Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. There are self-replicating molecules that are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry.

 

No humans did not evolve from apes, we are apes, Great Apes to be precise, hello fellow ape!

Oh the lies you have been told, if you are of European or East Asian decent the chances are you have Neanderthal DNA. Isn't science a bitch, it can prove to you that somewhere back in your past a descendent of yours mated with a Neanderthal. Welcome to the new world!

 

Yes lets take a look at the evidence since I am sure you have not, rather you have just taken the quote as supplied by lying creationist websites without any THINKING!

In February 1922, Harold Cook wrote to Dr. Henry Osborn to inform him of a tooth that he had had in his possession for some time. The tooth had been found years prior in the Upper Snake Creek beds of Nebraska along with other fossils typical of North America. Osborn received the specimen in March 1922, and quickly set out to identify it. Osborn, along with Dr. William D. Matthew soon came to the conclusion that the tooth had belonged to an anthropoid ape. They then passed the tooth along to William K. Gregory and Dr. Milo Hellman, who agreed that the tooth belonged to an anthropoid ape more closely related to humans than to other apes. Only a few months later, an article was published in Science announcing the discovery of a manlike ape in North America.[1] An illustration of H. haroldcookii was done by artist Amédée Forestier, who modeled the drawing on the proportions of "Pithecanthropus" (now Homo erectus), the "Java ape-man," for the Illustrated London News. Osborn was not impressed with the illustration, calling it: "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".[2]

From its initial description, Hesperopithecus was regarded as an inconclusive find by a large portion of the scientific community. Examinations of the specimen continued, and the original describers continued to draw comparisons between Hesperopithecus and apes. Further field work on the site in the summers of 1925 and 1926 uncovered other parts of the skeleton. These discoveries revealed that the tooth was incorrectly identified. According to these discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor an ape, but to a fossil of an extinct species of peccary called Prosthennops serus (or basically an extinct pig). The misidentification was attributed to the fact that the original specimen was severely weathered. The earlier identification as an ape was retracted in the journal Science in 1927.[3]

Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general acceptance in the scientific community,[2] and the purported species was retracted half a decade after the original article had been published by Osborn, creationists have promoted the episode as an example of the scientific errors that can undermine the credibility of paleontology and hominid evolution theories, and how such information is peer reviewed or accepted as mainstream knowledge.[4][5]

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

So it took science 5 years to uncover a fraud/mistake (which was not even generally accepted) made nearly 100 years ago!

Now lets compare that with the Shroud of Turin which is actually the subject of the OP but which not one Christian has mentioned in the thread.

This was conclusively proven to be a fraud in 1988 yet still a Christian liar uses it as evidence for his god.

I realise that you will just ignore the content of this post and continue to post lies from creationist websites following your gish gallop form of debate but there may be honest Christians reading this thread who deserve to know the truth.

 

I am grateful to Tulius who debunked either your assertions or that of the person you PLAGERIZED your posts from on another forum.

I recognized the name George Gaylord Simpson, so I went to my shelf, and you made me curious and I would like to know where and in what context he wrote that, because if you read his book “The Meaning of Evolution”, not only you will find answers to some of the questions you raised in the post quoted bellow, as he show us many of your wanted “transitional forms”.

Let me bring here a couple of quotes, from the mentioned book:

“Transitional types are not invariably lacking in the record. A multitude of them are known between species, many between genera, a few between classes, but none, it is true, between phyla. Most of the phyla appear toward the beginning of the Paleozoic, as discussed in Chapter I, and the absence of record of prior ancestral types is as hard or as easy to explain whether we suppose that they arose instantaneously or gradually. The record is obviously a sampling only and full of gaps. We would suppose that if all changes were by slow transition we still would find only a small proportion of the transitional types and might find none between the phyla, few in number and with their special conditions of early preservation. On the other hand, if major changes were always instantaneous, obviously we should find no transitional types and we do find many of them.” p.103.

And in the same paragraph: “If we did not happen to have found such types between fishes and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds on one hand and mammals on the other, or even between eohippus and the horse, these particular changes would surely be considered instantaneous by students who incline to that view.”

Or even the evident statement, still in the same page: “As H. E. Wood has remarked, the argument from absence of transitional types boils down to the striking fact that such types are always lacking unless they have been found.”

Let us recall that this book has some years (it is from 1949) and since then science evolved considerably. We know more today than George Gaylord Simpson knew then. Anyway, I repeat, I would like to know where did he said “The regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon”, and in what context, because or the writing is contradictory with the quotes that I brought here, or the context matters. I must say that reading him is not always straight forward, particularly for those, me included, that are not much versed in the theme.

Anyway, as I said, and I read the book ages ago, he in that book, will surely answer to some of the questions you made here, and in other posts:

 

Kent Hovind is a convicted felon, a proven fraudster and a liar about his scientific credentials. Worse he quotes from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a proven anti-semetic fraud. Surely your own conscience must tell you this man is a repulsive anti-semetic liar?

 

[The] regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate…it is true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.

-Simpson, George Gaylord. 1944. Tempo and Mode in Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press, 107.-

 

Kent Hovind was right when he said that reptiles didn't evolve into birds. Archaeopteryx is not an intermediate of reptiles and birds. https://creation.com/Archaeopteryx

 

Tiktaalik is not a missing link between fish and land animals. https://creation.com/tiktaalik-roseae-a-fishy-missing-link

 

Many Christians don't agree with the Shroud of Turin.

 

Humans and apes don't have a common ancestor. https://creation.com/genetics-huge-problem-for-ape-human-evolution

 

We can play your mind reading game too:

Theists invent and believe in Gods because they can’t live with the scary thought that they aren’t being cared for by a higher power and don’t have any power to control everything through it.

Christians believe in Jesus because they don’t want to take personal responsibility for their own wrongdoing.

See? We can all pretend to be mind readers and make such declarations.

That’s true. People don’t need to call themselves atheists in societies that aren’t constantly pushing Gods on them.

There is more evidence for Santa and for space aliens surveying the earth.

 

there are thousands of bits of evidence showing event and places in the Bible are real. Check out this organizations videos start wit this one
I love their approach.. they take as a given that the Bible is true.. and then find so many of the former archeology was just wrong.

 

For instance.. the site of Ai was misidentified, by using the topography described in the Bible they fond it, just as described in the Bible and they found a cartouche of the pharaoh of the Conquest.

 

Microevolution is limited by the genetic code. No features that are not already present in a creature's DNA can ever be produced by natural selection. So while there is variation within species, it is always within these limits. For example, there are many different types of dogs-from the Chihuahua to the Irish wolfhound, from the Mexican hairless to the Yorkshire terrier-yet they are still dogs.

In The Answers Book, Ken Ham describes this limitation of microevolution:

Adaptation and natural selection are biological facts; amoeba-to-man evolution is not. Natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of organisms-it cannot create new information. For example, since no known reptiles have genes for feathers, no amount of selection will produce a feathered reptile. Mutations in genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, not create new ones.

Thus, there are always natural limits to biological change. Natural selection is just that-selection. It cannot create anything new; it can only select from the information contained in the organism's genetic blueprint.

Yet evolutionists ignore this key fact and claim that one species can gain new information and evolve into another species. Unfortunately for this theory, evolutionists don't have any evidence for this. It has never been proven or observed in nature and, indeed, never can be.

 

People don't want to believe in God because they don't want to believe that they have to answer to someone. https://billygraham.org/answer/why-do-some-people-refuse-to-believe-in-god-in-spite-of-the-evidence/

 

None of that addresses my post regarding
abiogenesis. Microevolution and abiogenesis are completely different subjects.

Regardless, there is no genetic barrier.
Claiming that micro can never become macro is nothing more than rejecting the entire theory of evolution by arbitrarily asserting: “It ain’t so!”

Actually, it’s worse than that, because first it involves accepting, at the scale of a few visible generations, both the fact of and the mechanism for evolution (variation and natural selection), and then rejecting the inevitable consequences of what has been accepted.

Both are caused by mutation, genetic drift, gene flow or natural selection.

 

Microevolution is limited by the genetic code. https://creation.com/genetics-no-friend-of-evolution

 

Good stuff, Penguin

Just think how easy it would be for an all-powerful god to provide a little undeniable evidence to prove that it's the man.

Say, something as simple as bringing Alex Trebek back to life so that he can host some live episodes of Jeopardy! on national TV.

Of course, believers will perform their usual Olympic-caliber mental acrobatics to try to explain why their alleged god won't ever do anything like that.

If nothing else, they're good for a few belly laughs.

But here's the MOST LIKELY CORRECT reason why their alleged god can't perform bona-fide miracles ... their alleged god is nothing more than a product of their (wild) imaginations...

 

There are no boundaries that prevent organisms from evolving into new species.
Microevolution and macroevolution rely on the same established mechanisms of evolutionary change.

 

The Law of Probability shows the impossibility of life arising from non-life. According to astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle, the number of trial assemblies of amino acids needed to give rise to the enzymes required for life, and their discovery by random shuffling, turns out to be less than 1 in 1 times ten to the 40,000th power.34. Just to give you an idea of how astronomical this number is, one trillion is only ten to the 12th power. And it is estimated that there are only ten to the 80th power electrons in the entire universe! So 10 to the 40,000th power of anything is almost impossible even to imagine. Mathematicians say that any event in which the chances are beyond one in 10 to the 50th power is impossible-it is an event that we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place.

 

Hoyle believed life was brought here by aliens, do you agree?

 

I don't agree with everything he said. I believe that people want to believe that aliens created us because they don't want to believe that they have to answer to someone. https://billygraham.org/answer/why-do-some-people-refuse-to-believe-in-god-in-spite-of-the-evidence/

 

It is quite clear to me that no one really believes in a god, that is why they lie, plagerize and ignore evidence, they know their beliefs do not stand up to examination and their faith is very weak.