That doesn't make sense. I simultaneously believe and don't? Would a believer temp the anger of a reportedly touchy and hot-tempered god by masquerading as an atheist, which the believer is not? Are you saying I'm insincere, and just playing word games? Aren't you just denying my skepticism, because you can't conceive of a world without Big Daddy? The cognitive dissonance is yours, not mine. Look, I'm not saying the existence of agnostics, atheists, and so many religions is proof that gods don't exist, but they're not consistent with the idea that they do. I have no interest in disproving God or Bigfoot, which I find far more probable.
if God exists, it has measurable/detectable properties of energy or matter. so far no such evidence has been discovered. - - - Updated - - - this is the most common phrase yelled by folks who know there is no evidence for their claim.'
Molecular organisms? From whence did these organisms originate? - - - Updated - - - You have to make a big production regarding what you want us to think you disbelieve in order to convince yourself. It makes perfect sense if you think about the psychology behind it.
yes, its made up of atoms. these atoms come together to form molecules. molecules such as carbon, water, nitrogen, oxygen, etc. that's what our bodies are made of.
Give the evidences? You're barking at the wrong tree. If you want to know the evidence(s), you should try contact the National Academy of Sciences.....after all, they're the ones who made the scientific discoveries, and who'd made the claim in their book. I merely quoted them.
If I knew that I would win a Nobel Prize....fortunately there are very bright scientists trying to find out for me instead. " Dr Craig Venter, a multi-millionaire pioneer in genetics, and his team have managed to make a completely new "synthetic" life form from a mix of chemicals. They manufactured a new chromosome from artificial DNA in a test tube, then transferred it into an empty cell and watched it multiply the very definition of being alive. The man-made single cell "creature", which is a modified version of one of the simplest bacteria on earth, proves that the technology works. Dr Craig Venter, a multi-millionaire pioneer in genetics, and his team have managed to make a completely new "synthetic" life form from a mix of chemicals. They manufactured a new chromosome from artificial DNA in a test tube, then transferred it into an empty cell and watched it multiply the very definition of being alive. The man-made single cell "creature", which is a modified version of one of the simplest bacteria on earth, proves that the technology works. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...ratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html
I get it now. You think atheists struggle to explain the lack of evidence to support their claim, and feel the need to convince themselves of something they can't convince others of. That only happens to theists, atheists make no claims. Atheism is effortless; it's the lazy man's philosophy - lol. If you know why you don't believe in the Easter Bunny, you'll know why I don't believe in God.
I didn't see in that link where the NAS claimed what you said they did, that "There ARE EMPIRICAL evidences that support creation by God." They didn't say that at all.
I've found the opposite to be true. Atheists demand that we accept their version of the world if we cannot supply evidence that the individual atheist does not want to accept. For the religion of atheism to so effortless, they spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to convince believers of their claims.
http://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/6 http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html That's what "revealed by....," means. Made known. And the NAS listed some of the specific areas of science that discovered them. In other words, they'd done all the scientific methods needed, otherwise the NAS wouldn't have made such an official declaration.
Believe what you like, who's stopping you? But if you're going to convince me of your claims, the evidence will have to meet my standards. Otherwise, they'll just drop off like rain off a duck.
I think there were about 7 degrees of separation between what the NAS said, and what you claimed they said.
The thing that atheists fail to understand is that when people are on a discussion board, the intent may not be to convince you, or any other atheist, of anything. Yet, atheists feel compelled to make the same argument as if atheists alone are the only judges of the subject. You have a belief system. You have an alternate theory regarding how that which exists came about, but you're still missing the ultimate question... the one that is continuing to go unanswered.
Ecept they didn't make the claim. They printed some guff about such things being OUTSIDE the realm of science and like most extremists you simply lied There IS NO Such evidence ..if there was Christians would be quoting them constantly
Well you should take a deep breath, go back and read it again. You sound more like you're in denial. Your response doesn't make any sense at all.
What does value have to do with it? You can't possibly get evidence of something that can't be reigned in by scientific standards. 1. I don't need evidence (see above); 2. It's more than a matter of believing in other realities. It about seeing the obvious. - - - Updated - - - Do you know what mythology means?
