A Passively Ominous Screed

35 thoughts on “A Passively Ominous Screed”

1. Without having previously read what SmartXL has to say to this piece of shit of yours, my take is that you don’t make any sense, neither your lowly mind nor your sorry emotions. So, I pity you.

2. As usual, all theists have to offer are threats and lies. The basis of religion is “you’ll be sorry when…” Then offer the carrot of a paradise and bingo! you have a religion.

3. Hi, SmartXL, I read your response to this cockroach only after I had replied to it, I mean, to the said cockroach, myself firstly.

   Your words on intellectualism and its superiority are actually the same as mine, but elegant and in disguise.

   So, I am here to say it openly, this thing, creature, creep, freak, STINKS. Both his ‘mind’, i.e. ‘reason’ and emotions. Ugly.

   And it has nothing to do with his lack in the English language. I have the lack too, but…

   His crime is serious, it’s against the light of the reason and as such must be punished:

   FUCK OFF, YOU, IDIOT, WHO ONCE DARED ‘THINK’ YOU HAD THE RIGHT TO CALL YOURSELF AN A T H E I S T, THE MOST HONORABLE MIND TO BE AMONG HUMANS, SECOND ONLY TO M O Z A R T AND OTHER SUCH PEOPLE, WHO MAKE ME FEEL PROUD TO BE

   HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS

   While, you, you are a ugly bug!

   1. AN ugly bug. Not ‘a’. Sorry, my typo, or, rather, error, mistake.

   2. Niki. Such language hides the intelligence you are trying to prove you have. You don’t have to make it easier for me to show that evolution doesn’t require high intelligence to accept. Just misguided.

      1. no it doesn’t.
         my intelligence is my MIND but mine insulting the bug in question is my EMOTIONS. people kill driven by rage. i am only mildly reacting to this idiot, i was very angry but i would not murder him. some would. yet, i could and would murder for my son, his children and their mother, if somebody threatened their lives and well being.
         so, i continue to claim that i have an upper level intelligence, it was recently measured as over 167, and very broad knowledge in many regions of human knowledge, reason, but my emotions are of lower level. i have a hot temperament, i am in awe of MOZART and hate stupidity and ignorance, to a fault. i cannot help it, i am only human.
         as for acceptance of evolution, i recently read somewhere that among college students in america, accepting of evolution depends on…and i forgot on what, but not on the level of their religiosity. i forgot on what, because i could not care less for people who do not have the strength of their reasoning capabilities and intellectual curiosity which, both, would overpower whatever hinders them from understanding that evolution is the only way how we came to be as we are now, from one cell living organisms millions of years before. FOSSILS tell the story of living organisms, but idiot create ‘GODS’, because they have no idea what science and scientific method are, and succumb to their fear and need for a big daddy, actually fear of death. i too have it, but i respect my reason too much to succumb and fall so low to invent god and believe it would save me and my love ones only, while it did and does not save billions of people who died earlier than their years for death, without having been bad or anything. save me and my ass, hahaha and let innocent children die, what preposterous idiocy…
         very low. so, i got mad and cursed this cockroach who threatened us atheists, the best people on planet. us, of all, THE BRIGHTS !!!

4. Reply from the author “once an atheist” – mistakenly submitted as a new question:
   ——————————————————————
   Hi folks , sorry to wake you up. ill bet you’re thinking ; what an easy “christian to defeat”? Fact of the matter is, I consider myself of the “way”. I really consider Myself a disabled vet. Not gods fault . it happened because i strayed. “in me dwelleth no good thing”. But this is so serious of a problem that the atheist has, that karma compelled me to do this maybe for last time. Whenever anyone quotes one of the rules from the rule book, it goes out to accomplish the will of the universe. he will always provide u with a promise that he will most certainly keep. Thank you

   1. What the fuck is THIS shit ?

   2. Aaaaaaand another reply from the author sent through the question submission form again. This time, to give the rest of you an idea, I won’t proofread it first.
      —————————————–
      It sounds like a warning, but the rule says it and I have seen it happen several times .If anyone wants to “touch his beloved,or do them ANY harm,he will recompence . I believe something happened to all agnostic atheists to make them that way. its not to threaten ; its to elighten. so some lucky few would stop condeming the anointed ones. I never called myself anointed be i have seen the way. any atheist sould know all the holy books .
      
      SLx, are you showing your tru colors by talking about there not being a god etc….. to all different walks of life? I beleive yu are. A true Atheist doesnt like to discuss religion or god etc….. have yu been touched and just dont want to admit it? This will be the last time I will talk. I was sent here to say something and its done. I do hope you have no hard feelings. Im leaving you in gods hand. By the way you real christians out there pray to god that eventually he will perform an undeniable miracle on slx and all the other people that dont beleive in a god. If god wants, he will clear him of his unbeliefs………………………………………………………………………………..Or maybe he needs this forum to be his GOD? Goodbye, And Thank you. I wont be reading the rebuttals on this and you know why.

      1. A true atheist, “once an atheist”, discusses religions and gods when belief in these things has tangible and negative effects on people and the world around them. Whether we like doing so is irrelevant when there’s a purpose to it.

         I’m pretty sure I’ve already been prayed about a lot by now, but by all means try again.

5. Psychotic, or just an ordinary idiot?

6. Definitely PSYCHOSIS. GRAVE.

7. I see how you all, “the atheists” have the courage to chew on the comments of someone who is obviously a babe in Christ yet. But you don’t have the courage to provide answers to the arguments that Atheists and evolutionists say are their facts proving evolution. Why not just get it over with and admit that you don’t know just why you are atheists. That you just feel like one. Or that you are just to obstinate to be any thing more. Because you surely don’t have any evidence to give you good cause to believe in evolution, except for what you have heard others say or written, and that is why you respond with the same malarkey, that they do. “take my word for it. Evolution is how it happened” or at least this said in another way. If you say that God is a myth, then your facts for evolution are even more so. We as Creationists at least have all of life, that we, as well as some honest, honorable atheists have said looks to be designed. All you have is “no it doesn’t”. Yet it is on record that other atheists have said as much. And life still looks designed. You can’t get rid of it, so it looks as if we can see where our now President, has gotten his ability of being able to deny what is actual truth and insist that what he is saying is truth. The Atheists have made an art of it for so long. Going silent on that which is absolutely damming to evolution and diverting attention to something that really isn’t supporting evolution but can at least be held up as something and then lied about. (I’m talking about the pre installed abilities of each organism to compensate for environmental changes by adapting), not evolving. Because if it were a true evolution, as such, then why doesn’t it take the “millions of years” that evolutionists have said true evolution to take, and why are the changes so easily reversed when the environmental changes return to normal?

8. Because you are standing on your head, that’s why. Low IQ. Sorry.
   But, I will try to put things on their legs.

   FOSSILS PROVE EVOLUTION. Embryo evolves. But, you put things upside down. You see the final product, a layer cake, and you think it has been designed, because you see perfection. But, it was added, one by one, piece by piece, until it looks perfect. From egg, flour, cocoa, sugar, etc.

   Or, perhaps, a better approach would be asking you the following question.

   Let’s say there is nothing there, wherever it is that there is nothing. NOTHING. You see nothing.

   But, someone else, standing beside you, has a blossoming fantasy, plus fear and null intelligence and relevant education…that we call science…so s/he sees SOMETHING there. So, then, all of a sudden this other person says s/he sees something. But, you still see nothing.

   So, you two quarrel over this dispute of yours, until both of you decide to go to the court of justice over this, for a decision on who is right and who is wrong.

   IS THERE SOMETHING THERE OR IS THERE NOTHING THERE.

   So, you two do it.

   And then, does the judge asks you to PROVE THERE IS NOTHING THERE, OR HIM/HER TO PROVE THERE IS SOMETHING THERE.

   This is called the BURDEN OF PROOF. IT IS ON THE PERSON THAT MAKES A POSITIVE CLAIM, NOT ON THE ONE WHO CLAIMS NOTHING, OR MAKES A NEGATIVE CLAIM. If someone says you stole something, that someone will have to prove you did, until such instance you are innocent. You don’t have to prove you DID NOT steal whatever this is somebody claims you did. Their positive claim, their the burden of proof.

   It is on the one who makes a POSITIVE CLAIM, NOT THE ONE WHO MAKES A NEGATIVE ONE, the burden of proof is on the one who says s/he sees something…god as designer of the world in this case, not on you who say there is not god, no designer, no nothing. Sorry.

   NOBODY KNOWS…SCIENCE DOES, but let me put this aside for the moment…how the world came to be such as it is, nevertheless your opponent says it is ‘god’ that created, designed the world to be as it is now. But, s/he can give no proof of it. Then the judge asks her/him to prove his/her POSITIVE CLAIM about the existence of a creator of the world. But s/he fails to do so, ever since man created god.

   But, this idiot, you in this case, thinks it up to THE ATHEIST, WHO MAKES A NEGATIVE CLAIM, to prove it.

   So, the only conclusion is that you are both plain stupid and ignorant.

   So, the judge dismisses your positive claim about the existence of a creator of the world, until further notice, that is, until you can prove your positive claim.

   UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE THERE IS NO GOD SINCE NO ONE HAS YET PROVED THERE IS SUCH AN ENTITY, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THERE ISN’T ONE.

   But the atheists, i.e. I, does not sit on HER/his arse. She has a proof of HER POSITIVE CLAIM, that there has been and is still going on,

   EVOLUTION: FOSSILS. Millions of them, in succession.
   MILLIONS OF FOSSILS PROVE EVOLUTION.

   So, please stick your creator/designer of the world as it is now theory of the world up into your arse and it will stay there until the end of time, because you will never be able to prove your positive claim of ‘god’ as designer of the world, for the simple reason that THERE IS NO GOD.

   (As for the fact that it SEEMS…to you and the mass of people…as if the world has been designed and created, I can inform you that PHENOMENA DECEIVE THE STUPID, IGNORANT PERCEIVER )

   IN ORDER TO PROVE YOUR CASE THAT THERE IS ‘GOD’ AS DESIGNER AND CREATOR OF THE WORLD, PLEASE GIVE PROOR THAT THERE IS ONE.
   UNTIL THEN, UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THERE IS NO GOD, BUT THERE HAS BEEN EVOLUTION OF LIVING ORGANISMS FROM ONE CELL ONES TO ME WRITING THIS TO YOU. AMEN.

   And, to your sorrow, all the above is also valid for the ENTIRE UNIVERSE.

   It has NOT been DESIGNED and/or CREATED by anything.

   The world I S ENERGY, FROM WHICH MATTER CAME ABOUT…EINSTEIN

   AND FROM THAT POINT ON EVERYTHING ELSE, NON LIVING MATTER AND THEN LIVING. AND, FROM THEN ON, IT WAS (A?)PIECE OF CAKE FOR THE EVOLUTION TO PROVIDE THE EARTH WITH US, HUMANS ON THE SURFACE OF IT.

   HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS,

   TO WHICH SPECIES YOU UNFORTUNATELY, DO NOT BELONG.

   1. I dare all to read this all the way through. Then either show just cause that they can even claim, a misuse of quotes or just say outright that it doesn’t what is produced for proof, you don’t want to accept or believe in God.

      A Wall Street Journal article reported:
      “Scientists … often change their minds when they see new evidence. I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal ‘Nature’. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God — and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”
      Jim Holt, Science Resurrects God, The Wall Street Journal, December 24, 1997, Dow Jones & Co.

      ‘Science’ is the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States. Its August 1997 issue featured an article entitled Science and God: A Warming Trend? in which it said:
      “The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life — such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars — also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.”

      What Leading Evolutionists Say About Intelligent Design
      Physicist Dr. Stephen Hawking is regarded as one of the most brilliant scientific minds of this age. Although he declares himself an agnostic, he is clearly also an evolutionist, since he said:

      “We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star.”
      Stephen Hawking (quoted), Der Spiegel, October 17, 1988.
      In an apparent turnaround, however, Hawking said:
      “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us. The whole history of the universe can be said to be the work of God.”
      Stephen Hawking, The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe, Agawam, Massachusetts: New Millennium Press 2002, p. 117.
      In a similar vein, Hawking conceded:
      “The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous … I think clearly there are religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe.”
      Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, New York New York: Bantam Books 1998, p. 128.

      Richard Dawkins is the leading evolutionist and spokesperson for evolution today. In his famous book The Blind Watchmaker, he says:
      “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
      “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
      Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, New York, New York: Penguin 2006, pp. 1, 21.

      Phillip E. Johnson cites the renowned geneticist Francis Crick in order to illustrate the fact that the biological world has the strong appearance of being designed:
      “One of the world’s most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir Francis Crick, the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner… Crick is also a fervent atheistic materialist, who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are.”
      Phillip E. Johnson, Essay: Evolution And Christian Faith.
      Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery, New York, New York: Basic Books 1990, p. 138.

      Check out the date of publication of the book above. It was in 1990

      Moreover, Crick has written several times that problems with an undirected origin of life on earth are so great that we should consider the idea that space aliens sent a rocket ship to the earth to seed it with spores to begin life. Crick also stongly recommends Dawkin’s book The Blind Watchmaker, which says plainly that living things have the appearance of design.
      Crick also wrote:
      “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.”
      Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, New York, NY: Simon & Schuster 1982, p. 88.

      Sir Fred Hoyle was a distinguished British astronomer and Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, evolutionist and agnostic. He developed the steady state theory of cosmology and was considered for the Nobel Prize, though it was given to his underlings. In 1982, Hoyle presented Evolution from Space for the Royal Institution’s Omni Lecture. After considering the very remote probability of evolution he concluded:
      “If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of …”
      Hoyle, Fred, Evolution from Space, Omni Lecture, Royal Institution, London, January 12, 1982, pp. 27

      After years of study, Hoyle estimated the chances of the random emergence of even the simplest cell:
      “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein’.”
      Hoyle on Evolution. Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105.
      He also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik’s Cube simultaneously.
      “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
      Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution, London: Michael Joseph Limited 1983.

      Hoyle further said:
      “The likelihood (probability) of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to number with 40,000 noughts after it … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”
      Sir Fredrick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York, New York: Simon & Schuster 1984, p. 148.

      http://www.miraclesormagic.com/intelligent-design-vs-evolution.html

      1. Let’s say ok to all this, but WHAT FOR, WHY, TO WHAT PURPOSE?

         1. Please clarify your response.

            1. i meant, for the argument’s sake let’s say there is god and IT, not HE, because it makes no sense that god has gender, if anything, it would be a FEMALE not male because females have children, males give only a biological help, half of the genes, so, let’s say it created the material world out of nothing, the case in reality being similar to what god supposedly did, the universe has always existed in the form of energy that becomes matter, but, WHY would it do it, with WHAT PURPOSE, what’s its motif, driving force ?
               and the idea of it being a part of our daily lives is simply PREPOSTEROUS AND IDIOTIC !!!
               finally, that 40 % of scientists say they believe in an intelligent creator of the universe, means two possible things.
               one is that there are 60 % of scientists that don’t believe this.
               and, secondly, people are stupid. people fear. being a scientists does not matter that you are smart, you may have a high iq for mathematics but your emotional status is FEAR and want of a sky daddy to take care of you when you die because you are a little child deep beneath all this mathematical iq of yours. i have known almost illiterate people who don’t believe in god and when i asked them why they say god does not make sence because if god is mighty and good, there would be no evil. you cannot eat the pie and have it whole. either this god of yours is weaker than the evil…’satan’and cannot destroy it while it wants, or, it can but does not want it. either weak or evil. god.

               1. “i meant, for the argument’s sake let’s say there is god and IT, not HE, because it makes no sense that god has gender,”
                  Niki, you have yet to believe in God let alone try to determine if He should be referred to as He, She, or It. Let me help you to get to know Him first and then you can decide as to how you would like to refer to God. Ok? But we actually refer to God as He because He is the Father, the Creator of all.
                  And this statement of yours, “the universe has always existed in the form of energy”, has yet to be proven yet.
                  As far as we know there has to be a source from where the energy comes from. And that means that there is a source of energy that we have yet to identify. Or at least the Atheists, have to find it. The Christian knows where the energy comes from. Take a look at this Bible text.
                  “28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.” Acts 17.
                  And here’s one more.
                  Colossians 1:17 “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”

                  Now if you or someone else has found out how the small particles that make up the atom, were formed, and how these made up the elements, all making all the different elements and then somehow made all inanimate objects and then change their behavior and then cause those seemingly same types of atoms to form animate matter.
                  I know it is so easy for the Atheists and their pretend scientists to accuse Creationists for using the ‘G’ word as the excuse for all we can’t explain. But you know, for them they seem to have a very bad compulsion, to use the ‘C’, word to explain what you can’t explain. That’s the coincidence, card.
                  So the formation of the atom and the energy to keep them in place is a coincidence.
                  You know, I wonder if God used the same principle to keep planets in place that He used to maintain the orbits of the particles in the atom. I’d be glad to know what you think.
                  But then the next coincidence is that the universe happened on its own, even though it was made of nothing. Or even though everything was all in a natural balance of sorts.
                  And then life was all a coincidence. Even though for thousands of years we have seen all life coming from something or someone else.
                  Then the formation of the DNA and where that programing is stored, is the next coincidence you don’t have any explanation for. You can’t explain how that new life was able to circumvent the natural process of how each cell provides the DNA and all else the new cell needs to have in order to subsist, function and perform those functions.
                  You do realize that cells can not function with out its programing to tell it what to do. Come on. Let’s use some reasoning to logically think this concern through. You and I wouldn’t be able to take a breath with out any part of our respiratory system. And that system wouldn’t be able to function if it was not already in place for the respiratory system to function. One depends upon the other. Believe me I know. I was a Respiratory therapist. To say that the Respiratory system grew out of the necessity of the body in order for the body to live, is a big preposterous blunder of the little bit of reasoning that you have if you consider this to be true. The body of all mammals that “breath” as we do, would never have survived the first nano second of life if it had to wait for the respiratory system to “evolve”.

                  And in comparison to this is considering that that one lone cell that would have been the precursor of all the other cells that led to the making of all the rest of any one organism, simple or complex.
                  Once again, I ask you to consider the fact that we can remove the DNA from a cell today. And if that cell without its DNA, was left alone, with out any further care of an intelligence, it would just disintegrate. It would develop its own DNA on its own. Go ahead Atheists. Try this experiment on your own. If it was possible for that first cell to come to begin, and then form its own DNA and where that DNA is supposed to be stored, with out the aid of an Intelligence, then the newer ones of today, should be able to perform that function all on its own today. What? Oh you forgot that a cell can only perform functions for which it has programing for it to perform. Ok. Now you’re starting to use those old ‘noggins’, of yours. At least you are if you stop being so illogical.

   2. You know it is so strange why you don’t simply prove or show me why at least one of my arguments do not have merit. Try this one ok. Just one.
      Life coming to be all at once would not have DNA to instruct it to carry out any kind of function. It is an implied understanding that since the Atheists and some so called scientists feel that God was not necessary to produce life or that God did not create life all at once fully functioning. So if God did not do it. Then how could that first simple cell just magically appear, and how can you explain that each and every cell from every kind of organism must receive not only the housing in which to be, but also it must receive all of the machinery and programming it would need to carry out its function. To say that that simple cell just happened to pop out of nothing, would also seem to suggest that it came fully functional. And not having needed millions and millions of years to develop anything it would have needed to perform all it needed to do. So how can you harmonize the fact that all cells receive all of this from a previous cell, and the Atheists ignore this and say it could have happened on its own.
      Now this is just one of my arguments. Pull out your big guns and logically show me how what I have provided holds no weight, or at least show how this argument has been shown to be answered by tests done in a laboratory where they duplicated the process of that first cell simply coming from nothing and already functioning with DNA and the hardrive needed to contain it. This is all I ask. Where is the proof.

      1. Your low IQ and lack of relevant education and knowledge is the answer to most of your questions.
         Also, your third text is as low in its literacy as is the first. The only exemption is your second, but his is probably because you mainly quoted people much more literate than yourself there.
         Finally, your quoting of Dawkins does not serve you well, because he simply says that living organisms LOOK AS IF they have been designed. But, he also says, you failed to quote that one too, that if you follow the sequence of for example the eye of different creatures, you will see the graduation of it, the simple vision of skin cells to the perfect eye we humans have. The eye evolved very gradually, and you don’t need fossils to follow the sequence of its evolution from the simplest to the most complex; just see the eye of the simplest organisms living today, and follow its evolution through the eyes of the more complex ones, to our eye. Simple as that. And, there are fossils. So, you have two proofs of evolution. But, the thing you don’t have is a high enough IQ and relevant knowledge in biology, which, taken together, will enable you to understand…Einstein explained that one clearly…how big numbers enable just anything, but supernatural, to happen. Check Skeptic dictionary for ‘god’, there you will find what Einstein thinks of it. Nothing. He thought it was all crap.
         And if all the above do not suffice, think of WHY would your ‘god’ do all this, what’s its purpose, goal, aim….

         1. “Finally, your quoting of Dawkins does not serve you well, because he simply says that living organisms LOOK AS IF they have been designed.”
            Thank you for your honesty. But what you just stated makes the point that I was trying to make. Whether you are trying to divert deliberately or not, the point is that Creationists are not the only group who think that life looks designed. We do believe this as support for Intelligent, and we choose to allow the evidence to speak for itself, and not try to make up theories to not have to admit that God does exist. And that He created everything.

            Let’s see. You won’t answer my arguments. You refuse to accept that even though everything appears designed, and there are Atheists who admit that everything looks designed, and that even though there are testimonies of millions of individuals that have observed each and every millions of different types of organisms have always only reproduced themselves. And this has been the pattern happening for over thousands of years. Oh shucks. You forced me to play another one of my arguments. Ok. But that’s all for now. Give me a reason that my first argument that there is no way that a one celled simple form of life could have appeared from out on nowhere without having had some kind of intelligence designing and constructing it. And then please deal with the later argument. I’ll be waiting.

         2. Oh I forgot your attempt to divert the issues using the statement or the speculation that the very complex organs like an eye, could have developed through the “millions and millions” of evolution.
            Now once again let me repeat, this idea is only pure speculation. That is unless there have been some recent laboratory experiments where the atheists have been able to demonstrate what they speculated actually was possible. If so, please share these recent updated experimental, also intelligently designed organs, although with a lower form of intelligence.

      2. i meant, for the argument’s sake let’s say there is god and IT, not HE, because it makes no sense that god has gender, if anything, it would be a FEMALE not male because females have children, males give only a biological help, half of the genes, so, let’s say it created the material world out of nothing, the case in reality being similar to what god supposedly did, the universe has always existed in the form of energy that becomes matter, but, WHY would it do it, with WHAT PURPOSE, what’s its motif, driving force ?
         and the idea of it being a part of our daily lives is simply PREPOSTEROUS AND IDIOTIC !!!
         finally, that 40 % of scientists say they believe in an intelligent creator of the universe, means two possible things.
         one is that there are 60 % of scientists that don’t believe this.
         and, secondly, people are stupid. people fear. being a scientists does not matter that you are smart, you may have a high iq for mathematics but your emotional status is FEAR and want of a sky daddy to take care of you when you die because you are a little child deep beneath all this mathematical iq of yours. i have known almost illiterate people who don’t believe in god and when i asked them why they say god does not make sence because if god is mighty and good, there would be no evil. you cannot eat the pie and have it whole. either this god of yours is weaker than the evil…’satan’ and cannot destroy it while it wants, or, it can but does not want it. either weak or evil. god.
         another. dna did not come together all of a sudden. einstein explained that almost anything is possible in a big number of events. so, after billions of years in the worm soup of whatever become the dna, these accidentally came together in a right order or number or whatever. RANDOM happens, dont you know that !!!

      3. Gerald, this stuff has been explained to you already, more times than I care to count. No one has ever tried to claim that life started with a full set of DNA, except creationists like you who thinks it did because you literally believe the story in Genesis. You think a god waved some magic wand and “POOF”, there was life fully formed with a full set of DNA. No scientist thinks that is how life formed, so why you continue to ask questions that do not reflect reality is beyond me.

         The facts of replicating molecules, lipidic membranes, and thermal vents has been patiently explained to you over and over again. It’s not anyone’s fault that you can’t seem to learn anything at this website.

         Do us all a favor. Instead of asking for scientists to recreate DNA and fully formed life in a lab, why don’t you get some preacher to recreate a fully formed god in a church some time. You’ve never provide any evidence at all for your god being, despite lots of requests for it. Maybe you could work on that instead…

         1. “Do us all a favor. Instead of asking for scientists to recreate DNA and fully formed life in a lab” I am doing you a favor. I’m trying to get you to use your head, for something more than a hat rack. Don’t you remember, “a mind is a terrible thing to waste”. And that is exactly what has been happening with each and every Atheist who remains an Atheist. My argument is valid. Observation is one of the tools used to allow the scientific method to ascertain whether or not a theory is valid.

            The, or at least the most honest of the Atheists, recognize the cavernous hole, that is skirted around by the Atheists when they don’t deal with how life came to be. They, the ones who do reason with some logic, at least enough to recognize the holes in the reasoning around the theory of evolution, know that if life can not be shown to have been possible without an Intelligent being, that the theory of evolution, is already a forgone memory. It can not be if God is the only way that life could have become. And that is exactly what it appears to have happened since, One, life appears intelligently designed. Two, life has only been observed to have come from that which is already alive. Three, every organism, simple or complex, has always been observed to reproduce their own kind. Four, there are those who have either been evolutionists and or Atheists who have admitted that life seems to be designed. And some who have even gone so far and stated that they were wrong before on their stance in believing in evolution, and that they now instead believe that life was created.
            Sooner or later, Evolution will be go the way of the flat earth theory. Onto the trash heap.

9. I just reread the scroll of the ‘once atheist’ and it now makes some sense to me, I can see now that he is threatening us, atheists ,for not believing in ‘god’ and for telling him, the author of the scroll, what we think of him, something he deserves totally.

   But, his threat change nothing because he is far away and cannot reach us, his curse cannot damage us because curses cannot do this, except, perhaps, in cases one believes they can, in which case it is a placebo effect and anyway ‘god’ does not exist, but even if it did, it would not want to punish atheists for not believing in its existence, for the simple reason it is hiding from us very successfully and we, atheists, don’t believe anything on someone’s word.

   So, bugger off, you little, mean idiot. You cannot scare any atheist, you are just like a scare craw and as much ugly inside, I hope on the surface, too, because bad feeling spoil the bad feeler’s looks. No one gives a damn for your idiotic words. Hide in your stinking hole and meditate, maybe it will help you not get cancer from hatred you are full of.

10. SmartXL, can I, please, get your notifications of the comments on the posts you send me? Ta. N.

11. I forgot to check the notifications box. I am doing it now. N.

12. My, my … ho-kay, well … some excerpts and comments follow …

    1.) “I have to be very careful what I say because the comments I get from the atheists might backfire and I wouldn’t want them to get in trouble. Call it karma, luck, repercussions, god, it always happens when someone tries to touch me with their unbelief, or harm me with their insults.”

    Comment: I am getting older. Order tends to disorder in general in the world (net/ overall). So when I say or think stuff about some people and some harm comes to me I am not sure who to blame it on – Karma or … just plain ol’ Entropy.
    Plus, what about the times when I do good to others and harm comes to me. What about the times I think bad about some irritating sod and some good comes to me? Why does god send such confusing signals?

    2.) “It’s amazing to me how many people with exceptional IQs cannot establish the truth in their lives. The smarter you get, the more of a fool you become in God’s eyes.”

    Comment: The smarter one gets, the bigger a fool one becomes in one’s own eyes, I think … forget god etc. With experience and thinking, we tend to start understanding how strange things are and how (strong though it is) the human intellect struggles feebly to understand the universe.
    But better to be a constantly searching fool than be a self-satisfied non-thinking believer of the kind of fiction most religions dish out.
    Every technical comfort we enjoy today (including being able to share thoughts on the internet) has been achieved by the feeble human intellect grasping with small and big questions of all sorts. Not by religious spin-doctoring. Lets not forget that please.

    3.) The rule book of life (KJV Bible) is supposed to be used to uplift people not make them hate and tremble at the sound of the word god for he is love. Don’t believe it? Jesus says he would rather have mercy than sacrifice.

    Comment: That’s nice to know. Why aren’t other texts rule books? What makes KJV Bible the greatest rule book ever?

    4.) “In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word WAS GOD” and the word became FLESH and dwelt among us”

    Comment: Actually, according to Asimov (in his beautiful short story – The Last Question) … someone did say “Let there be light”. But it wasn’t god.
    As good a fiction as any other.

    1. true, but this is because there is reason and there is emotion.
       emotion rules against reason.
       this is why intelligent women marry idiots, but HANDSOME idiots.
       their emotions make them marry idiots, not their reason.
       men do the same, intelligent men marry hookers.
       but beautiful hookers.
       emotions are beautiful but make us do stupid things.

13. Once an atheist writes: [I have to be very careful what I say because the comments I get from the atheists might backfire and I wouldn’t want them to get in trouble.]

    I assume you mean we would get in trouble with your particular god. While I sincerely appreciate your concern for everyone’s well being, I think it is fair to point out that each one of us is responsible for the contents of our thoughts and actions. You aren’t going to make anyone do anything. So I wouldn’t hold back on having this discussion because of possible repercussions for what I or anyone else states. We are all adults, we can handle our end of the deal just fine.

    Once an atheist writes: [Call it karma, luck, repercussions, god, it always happens when someone tries to touch me with their unbelief, or harm me with their insults.]

    Might I suggest another explanation? Confirmation bias, perhaps?

    Once an atheist writes: [It’s amazing to me how many people with exceptional IQs cannot establish the truth in their lives. The smarter you get, the more of a fool you become in God’s eyes.]

    Since the Judeo-Christian god supposedly made us in it’s image, are you saying that your god is an idiot and doesn’t like it when we outsmart him?

    Once an atheist writes: [It’s in the rule book that almost everyone knows.]

    By “everyone” you mean 30% of the world? The majority of the planet is not Christian, never has been Christian, and has no clue what the tenets of Christianity are.

    Of course what they “know” is highly in doubt anyway. A 2013 survey by the American Bible Society found that 57% of people read from their Bibles 4 times a year or less. Only 1 in 4 say they read their Bible on a regular basis. The “rule book” isn’t nearly as well known as one might tend to believe…

    Once an atheist writes: [And now I could condemn atheists and agnostics if I wanted to but I’ll just meditate more and learn to love all humans because karma or god really doesn’t need me to judge or convince others, he’ll do it all himself just like he did it to my folks.]

    Please spare us your false high-minded nobility. We get that you think you are in the “know” and therefore can arrogantly dismiss everyone else. Maybe you should do what I do. Instead of praying or meditating, I volunteer at Habitat for Humanity sites, and help build homes for people. That way I know something actually got done…

    1. hi there, i am a darn atheist, so i know there is no free will in human brain, law of causality rules and determines everything that happens as a consequence of cause(s). and so are our feelings thoughts and unfortunately decisions and actions too determined by their previous exterior and interior causes. brain is not independent. it is causal.
       being so, i, as a lawyer am informing you and all other people who believe we are free when we feel think decide and act, that the law lies to us that court sentence for a crime is aimed to correction the criminal. it is not. it is a punishment, but, since it sounds very harsh to punish someone who committed a crime in absence of her/his free will, then the science of law invented the correction as the aim of time in prison. if so. america which is one of the most democratic countries would not have capital punishment, death, but it does. this proves that sentencing a criminal is punishing him/her, while at the same time all neurologists say there is no such thing as free will in the brain, nor soul. brain is purely material and as such functions under the causality law.
       read SAM HARRIS, the top world neurologist and one of the four, now that christopher hitchens died, three, top atheists of the world, the other being richard dawkins, a scientist, biologist, of course and daniel dennet, a ‘scientist’ of nothing, i.e. philosophy.
       so, sam and dan quarrell over the non existence, says sam, and existence, says dan, of free will in the material human organ, brain.
       BUT, SAM IS A NEUROLOGIST AND DAN IS A…’philosopher.
       finally, whether there is something in the human brain, neurology tells us, not philosophy. leave alone that it is much ado about nothing.
       mind, socrates did not talk about nothing. most of known philosophers were actually scientists of human thought. and many have been darn misogyinsts. so f.ck them off.
       so since i have established that there is no free will, this idiot of an once an atheist is right that we can be harmed. but he is bullshitting that the punishment for our bad deeds, leave alone that we are neither to blame for bad nor praised for good that we do, all this is our genes and our environment playing through us, but the punishment comes from within. our bad conscience. because we all know, even hitler and trump what is right and what is wrong. the good ones know it on their conscience, the bad ones hide the knowledge in their subconscius, but it bites them from within and brings them illness, psychological in the form or anxiety and depression and in material form, cancer.

14. Niki. Really. How old are you. Not only “such language” but now also “such thinking”.
    Let’s just toss about what we think and not how we feel. Ok. Keep it friendly.

15. Hello Tim. Happy to have you back in the breech.
    But no, no one has ever address this point of my argument. It has been avoided as the plague. This is part of what you just stated. “No one has ever tried to claim that life started with a full set of DNA,” And this. “The facts of replicating molecules, lipidic membranes, and thermal vents has been patiently explained to you over and over again.” I recall someone mentioning something like this, or that, but that is as far as it got. An “honorable mention”. But with all that has been mentioned, never has anyone provided any kind or research where what has been mentioned has actually been reproduced in a lab. All that has provided, (and I know that I have stated this over and over again), but you don’t provide any proof.
    I know that real scientists a long time ago, found through in depth experimentation, that “Spontaneous Generation” was not plausible.
    Yet now the pretend scientists of the Atheists, pull this already declared “not plausible” theory and dust it off, repackage it and use it to try to show that the Atheists now have a way to show that life could have come into being without God. Yet, this “not plausible” and disproven theory called “spontaneous generation” still has not been shown to be possible.
    And none of you still have yet to contest my argument, that any new life, especially the first life ever, could never have come to be first of all, (no spontaneous generation), but also you have not shown how that new life, first life ever organism, would never have been provided with any DNA, nor with where that DNA would be downloaded. I have told you and if you think it through you yourselves would be able to understand that it is impossible for DNA to be evolved into. Because you would need DNA to cause DNA to be produced. That is why it is already installed in the next cell that is produced.
    And once again, unless you are willing to accept the fact that all organisms have always been, you must realize that the only other possibility is that an Intelligence designed and manufactured the cell and placed within each cell of each organism, all of the information every cell would need to produce all of the organisms that have ever graced this planet. From the simplest to the most complex.

    And, and, we have repeatedly observed that what I have argued has been the only way that we have seen that each cell of each organism has always been reproduced, fully functional.
    This is the only thing that has been witnessed. Any other theory is mute, because no other theory has been observed. Nor has any other theory ever been shown to have been possible to make life. Therefore, no other theory can be used as an argument as a valid answer to how life became.

Comments are closed.