I welcome you to the forums in all honesty. But I would like to point out that if you're looking for genuine discussion and debate with us atheists, I'll make a few respectful suggestions. Start a thread either in "atheists vs theists" or "killing them with kindness" whichever you feel is fitting. Try to start with a specific topic for coherency's sake. For example, I notice you used about every buzz word in modern theology, and misused the term "biogenesis" when I believe you meant "abiogenesis." Nobody will or should take somebody seriously if they don't know about the subject they're against. For example, be prepared for atheists to know scripture front to back. If I were going to discuss abiogenesis with someone, I'd expect, at the very least, the person understand the terminology and to have a basic understanding of the Miller Urey experiment and its derivatives. Would you debate religion with me if I had never read the Holy Bible? Probably not. You would dismiss me immediately.

I don't mean this in any derogatory fashion, nor as an accusation. It just gets too difficult to hold meaningful conversation when too many arguments are made. I do look forward to your perspective and hope we can have productive conversation!

All you have to do to understand the absurdity of "complexity" as an argument is ask yourself would you buy this same argument if the salesman were not a Christian?

The reality is that it works opposite of how theists want to argue it.

Complexity is an emergent property, not a starting point.

AND even if the atheist were to concede this point which "complexity" or "designer" started all this?

Find me one believer in any god who does not think it leads to theirs and I will find you a lier.

Does design lead to a designer? Yes.

Do you have any evidence that said designer is the God of the Bible? No.

Is the universe designed? If it is, it has been designed very poorly.

Are you sure you want to attribute such a mess to your God?

The only people you are mandated to respect is the board owner and the admins  and the rules are actually quite simple and nowhere near as anal as other boards. Since I am not an admin or the board owner I cant advise you on how they will deal with you.

I think they would say as long as you follow the TOS you'll be ok.

My personal advise, since I cant speak for them and don't pretend to, would be to treat all of us as individuals because we are very diverse in our tactics and comfort levels here.

If you want to wade in the shallow end before getting into the "hot water" there is a "Kill Em With Kindness" section if you are not sure where to start.

I myself don't mind the verbal boxing ring, my debate style is "cut to the chase" "no holds barred. Others here like the library approach and will most certainly have more patience than I do with certain arguments.

I can say with all certainty that we do want you here, but don't think it is always going to be easy or that you will always hear nice things, or that you are here to preach or teach.

This site has had long term theists. One is a pagan and a couple are pantheists and another is a Christian, whom we can't seem to get through to, but they have all stuck it out and we are glad they have stuck around.

We debate here and sometimes it isn't pretty, but like I said, that doesn't mean we hate you. Just take it as, "you are full of it".

Thats all the advise I have, like I said, do not think I am speaking on behalf of the entire board. I am only speaking in general terms from my own perspective.

If you can accept that Zues and Thor as claims didn't exist 1 billion years ago, and won't exist 1 billion years from now, what makes you or your claims so special? Jesus didn't exist as a claim 1 billion years ago because there were no humans around to claim he was magically popped out without TWO sets of DNA. Just as you rightfully accept that no one was around to make claims about Allah or 72 virgins 1 billion years ago.

Could it merely be your own human psychology causing you to merely want to pretend a god is real because the placebo is more comforting than the HARSH real reality of nature and the universe?

"design"

Yea, gamma rays and meteors are a blast. I am sure black holes care about our tiny dot and wouldn't dare gobble us up if we got too close.

When the sun finally expands and dies it certainly wont bake us like charcoal.

What a "design" Wow, that took such brains to come up with and all because Eve screwed us we get to enjoy this perfect "design". Wow, thanks dad. I enjoy all the violence, disease and war you so perfectly "designed". It is so fun.

Or it might be that there is no "design" and you merely have to force yourself to mix fiction with science in order to swallow it.

You don't know everything about the "history" of Islam, but yet you have no problem rejecting claims of Allah.

I don't know every part of my car engine nor could I build one from scratch, but I don't assume it works off of magical pixy dust, or that the history of cars started with magical elves.

 Hey again brian.

If design lead to Allah then the Koran wouldn't contradict science as we understand our earth and universe, but it does. The bible has held the punches of science. What about the 12 creation accounts in Genesis being in line with what we know had to have happened in the early years of earth? Finite universe, continually expanding, springs of the ocean and currents regulating tempatures, water cycles, as well. They may read as simple verses but they have never contradicted science.

As far as Jesus not being around 1 billion years ago, why would he come then? There were no humans. Look up 'The Problem of Pain' by C.S. Lewis and read the Intro, he'll bring light the subject.

Who is running scared? I came here to talk with you. The 'a priori' entrenched dogma of your macro evolutionary theories is not held up under the weight of honest science. That is what I am interested in. Is it because you have no where to go otherwise and that all postulations are pretheoretical, presupposed assumptions that must then be extrapolated into science to create persuasive models and theories.

A puppeteer? If God created everything, is it then illogical to say he can manipulate it all at once? I think not. By the way if the massive power needed to create our universe, was in fact God's word then it is easy to think his commands can move or direct anything or everything. He's God. 

As far as my first remark to the bible and science, there are so many scientists, scholars, ancient historians, archaeologist's and paleontologist's that stand on the side of affirmation, that we must understand there is massive amounts of serious studies on both sides. 

got to run to work, Have a great night!!

You did not just bring up Genesis as having scientific credibility? No, never seen that one before.

Which part? The part where your claimed being treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light? Or the part where plants "poof" suddenly appear without the benefit of photosynthesis? And all this in 6 days? And of course this "all powerfull god needed to rest on the 7th day.

AND HE BROUGHT UP CS LUIS TOO!

I think I'll be bringing my aspirin when I read his "arguments" tomorrow.

As far as the "science" in genesis goes as adding credibility to the Bible, I was just curious how you explain away the "Scientific Miracles" of the Qur'an http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html - Wouldn't these "scientific facts" found in the Qur'an add just as much credibility to Islam's holy book as your "scientific facts" add to the Bible?  How do you refute these claims?

If I can manage find some spare time I plan on looking through the translation of some ancient Greek/Egyptian creation myths.  Then I will find some amazing "scientific facts" in them, thus proving that they are infallible. 

Here is a tease from a Persian creation myth.

"As the creator rested, the first mountain grew"

This is clearly a reference to plate tectonics, it wasn't until just hundreds of years ago that science discovered that mountains actually grew a little each year - but somehow the Persians were able to know this thousands of years ago.

 Hey guys, I first want to say sorry for coming out here in your forums with a know it all attitude, with which I did not want to carry. None of us know it all and I really didn't come here to win arguments or even argue at that, but to gain and learn more from other perspectives and maybe offer mine. There is so much criteria here to be debated that we just can't have room for it. So briefly let me try to clarify what I was saying earlier about the Bible and the 12 creation accounts. I wasn't saying because it says things that science can confirm that it is true, but that when it says things about science, science hasn't proved it wrong. For example, when Genesis talks about the earth being covered in water, we know this was true in the first stages of early earth and that is followed by land formation and then the process to a transparent atmosphere. The accounts given in order in genesis are inline with what we study in science. Also the stages of life, that water species came first and then land species as in what we see from the fossil records. And it being a finite universe with continual expansion. I'm not saying "look" the bible says this, all I'm saying is we must give credit to this text that is over 3,500 years old and it got the steps in order. As for the reference to the Qur'an I looked at the site and have heard the debates before and can say that most of it is like this, Allah gave you speech, therefore Allah created the vocal cords. That is circular reasoning and it was written in the 600's. I'm not well read enough honestly to fully answer all the questions, but my lack of answer still doesn't mean there isn't one, there are multitudes of people more educated than me on this. 

On the note of 6 days, I'm not a young earth believer. The translations are not necessarily 24 hours. The word for day is used in the same context many times pertaining to periods. "poof' with out photosynthesis? do you know early life didn't have photosynthesis? God's day of rest is again pertaining to periods, in reference to Hebrews when he says man will enter his rest, meaning that period following. Oh and God doesn't claim the moon to be a producer of light but that if offers light. (through reflection)

"design" The nature of the gamma rays, meteors and black holes are wonders and part of his display to us of our futility. It makes me think that we are but a vapor to our Creator and if we weren't aware of that, what kind of blindness would we have? There are rational reasons for the so called random catastrophes in the universe and they are products of creation.

'rigor mortis' ? If he was raised from the grave, His body wasn't subject to decay. It is the Roman's that couldn't account for the empty grave, that's why the accounts are around, any disciple could say something, but if it wasn't true the political suppression would crumble it. 

and to the last reply from extremist -'recent', i don't believe in young earth. It is old, and there are lots of fossils. The problem with evolution if that's where the question " what fossils support creation?" leads is stasis and sudden appearance(not recent). The lack of solid transitional fossils that show small progressive changes is weak. Most fossils leave the fossil record almost the same as when they came. And the earliest claimed transitional for humans is 300,000 years before man showed up on the scene.  A quote from Palaeontologist David Raup  of the Field Museum of Natural History which houses the largest fossil collection in the world says this "we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky, and ironically we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" Darwin himself knew this to be a problem because he couldn't quote one. That's not good if this is the truth. 

Guys I will be busy this weekend so I will do my best to keep up, but I just want to say thanks again for your critique. It makes me think! 

I don't agree with this. I think there is surprising lack of historical accuracy on the important CHECK OUT GOD things. For decades there have been agenda hungry Christian and Judaic archaeologist combing the Middle East trying to prove the Exodus actually occurred. All the plagues and parting of the Red Sea and 40 years wandering in the wilderness and nothing has been found outside the biblical account. No reference in Egyptian literature. The biblical account of Joshua at Jericho where the sun is stopped for a day, no one on the earth even noticed that? The ancients who worshipped the sun wouldn't take note? The Bible is a miss mash of stories and statistically some things would be accurate especially if you MUST find something,  but I give it no better than a flip of a coin. Isn't it odd that the God of the Bible chose to show himself to a primitive desert people? He avoided all the great empires of the world and chose to tell ignorant people. Have you notice the same is true of extraterrestial aliens who visit just the same? I know Christianity takes glee in that, but I would think God would prefer to converse with someone who is engaging rather than the rough equivalent of a dumb blond.  

Hi, Randy7j, welcome to the forum!

I don't have much time right now, so I will make this short.

You are approaching this discussion with the assumption that someone could spoon-feed you the entire scientific fields of evolution and genetics in a few paragraphs. I know this probably sounds annoying, but I don't think you have any idea how complex and truly difficult these types of topics are. Science is not theology. You can't just discover the secrets of the universe by mentally masturbating in an armchair. Topics like these require decades and decades of meticulous observation and experimentation. No one, other than a biologist with a rain man memory, could really detail the entire process of the evolution of DNA without spending an enormous amount of time on research and linking to other websites. 

But, that aside, life certainly does NOT need DNA to exist. DNA is a convenient method of encoding genetic information, but there are currently, organisms that exist without DNA, and it's entirely conceivable, that had evolution originally progressed in a different direction, DNA would barely be utilized at all. Sure, there would be other ways other of storing information, but it wouldn't be DNA. 

Sorry, I have to go.

Welcome!

Please do start some threads about what you believe.  Don't get discouraged if the response is hostile and mocking, since the theories you bring up have been discussed many times here at great length.

Unless you have a very thick skin, I would suggest starting a bunch of threads under, 'Kill em' with Kindness'.

I hope you post a lot, and stick around for a while!

No one thought that you had a "Know it all attitude", neither do we.

BUT in being here you have to expect us to criticize and even blaspheme your claims. We wont hate you. But if you do not prove your claims, we simply will not adapt them.

Certainly he his "trouble", but for himself, not me. I don't see it as much "trouble" as much as I see him as a "chewtoy". I can't say I wont grab my bottle of aspirin. But, I look at this rehashed argument as merely a new sparing partner who merely thinks we haven't seen this before. It keeps me on my toes.

I hope it troubles him that he sees that we wont get wrapped up in the "Pay no attention to the myth behind the curtain" tactic, he uses that SHOULD trouble him.

I do think, like most, having seen this before, that he came here thinking he could "wow" us. He is in for a world of hurt (NOT LITERALLY, JUST DEBATE) just like the others in the past that have tried the same tactics.