I'm pretty sure that mis-teaching evolutionary theory is the main reason it continues not to be argued.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html is the best resource, and explains evolution far better and in considerably more depth than I ever could. Wikipedia is pretty good too.

But here is a summary of the more common misconceptions.

If any of these surprise you, then the evolution you were arguing against is a strawman, and nobody holds the belief that you were arguing against.

1. Evolution says nothing about cosmology, the big bang, or where the universe, galaxy, solar system, or Earth came from. Evolution is only about life.

I just wonder. Jesus often said that you shouldn't make a big deal out of praying in front of others, and his harshest criticisms were for the Pharisees who made a big deal of praying in public. So why do most Christians want the publicly posted 10 commandments, public prayer, etc.? Isn't this being like the Pharisees and disobeying Jesus? Do they think hell will be fun?

downs syndrome. any other physical or mental imperfection for that matter.

how can something that is perfect create something imperfect?

think of it like a basketball team, an incredibly skilled point guard makes 90% of his shots. wouldn't a perfect point guard make 100% of his shots? wouldn't a perfect god create people with perfect health?

Hey everyone,

    I just recently joined the forums and wanted to present my articles to everyone.  First of all, I am a Christian so I am here to argue against atheism.  I recently wrote two articles, and I have two more on the way, that are critical of the arguments put forth by Brian and Kelly during the Nightline debate.  They are posted on my website at www.vineoflife.net.  You should see the link for the Nightline debate on the main page.  I hope you all check it out!

 -Colin

Am I a glutton for punishment?

I hadn't watched the whole unedited version in its entirety and I am cringing in horror as I listen to Kirk's explanation of evolution and his absurd assertion that there are no transitional fossils.  The crocoduck segment was the absolute clencher.  I can only watch in small doses.  The ignorance being displayed is truly painful, especially since a large part of the American population actually agrees with Kirk and people like him.  They actually get their evolutionary education from people like Kirk.  I feel outright embarrassment on Kirk's behalf, partially because he will never educate himself to the point where he can feel embarrassed for himself.

What does everyone think of Buddhism?  A religion that was founded in India and claims to offer a means of achieving happiness.  In truth it actually more of a philosophy than a real religion, and while they do not worship any deities they do believe that gods exist and that the supernatural is real.

I was a little disappointed to watch O'Reilly debate atheism with Richard Dawkins. O'Reilly's entire argument rested upon "throwing in with Jesus" (which is similar to the fallacious argument called Pascal's Wager). Bill's first argument makes Richard smile when he implies a magic-man must exist because "the tides come in the tides go out, the sun go up the sun go down."  This is known as the argument from design that's been refuted over and over by philosophers and scientists. Soon after Bill concedes the fact that science explains "the 'physiology of it' if you will [e.g. the earth's rotation round the sun];" after all he must know that we no longer say "Thor thundered" to explain lightning. But O'Reilly clings to the God of the Gaps fallacy by saying, "it had to come from somewhere," and "that's the leap of faith that you guys make that it just happened." Saying scientists think the Big Bang just happened is a Straw Man fallacy. Saying it had to come from "somewhere" is also a false analogy. Time and space originated with the Big Bang so what happened before the origination of time and space is a nonquestion, like asking what is north of the North Pole. O'Reilly didn't mention the First Cause Argument but it is implied in his faulty reasoning. If everything must have a cause or has to come from somewhere what caused his deity? Positing a deity to answer how matter, force, and energy originated in the Big Bang merely begs the question, where did his deity come from, how did he get there? What was he doing before he created time and space? It's also the fallacy of an appeal to ignorance when he says you can't explain the origination of the Big Bang just yet therefore Jesus did it; that just doesn't follow. Why not say Allah or Brahman did it? Or a wholly natural explanation rather than a supernatural one?

This video clip here shows the silliness of O'Reilly's arguments.

From The Huffington Post

02.22.2007

Jesse Lava Bio

Poor and Sick Children Among Apathetic Christians

UNICEF's latest report on child well-being shows the U.S. failing miserably.

In this topic I include some arguments from 'The God Theory' by Dr.Bernad Haisch and of couse I add a little.

Let us begin.

Some theists view God as physical entinty. That when they die, they go and meet him and perhaps invite him to a few rounds of golf. This of course preludes the argument 'If everything need creation, then who created God?'. I however hold a more scienctific view. Matter is nothing more than a filtered illusion. It is defined only by it's inertia (resistance to acceleration) giving by F=ma. The formula itself gives no rise in thought as to what causes this inertia. It wasn't derived, it is a prostulate. A physicist deriving this would be equivalent to a mathematician deriving 1+1=2, it is just assumed true and is used to advance our knowledge. I will discuss what may cause this resistance later, so keep this in mind.

If there is one thing of which I am certain, it is this: When one leaves the “Western world” and ventures abroad, one enters a completely new world. Primitive cultures and civilizations abound, many of which cling to incredibly strange beliefs. One wonders, how could these people actually believe in that? Surely, we should expect more from the fellow representatives of our species, even if they are behind the scientific curve when compared to the United States. The Fang people of Cameroon are as good an example as any is. The following passage comes from “Religion Explained,” by Pascal Boyer.

The Fang people believe “… that witches have an extra internal animal-like organ that flies away at night and ruins other people’s crops or poisons their blood. It is also said that these witches sometimes assemble for huge banquets, where they devour their victims and plan future attacks. Many will tell you that a friend of a friend actually saw witches flying over the village at night, sitting on a banana leaf and throwing magical darts at various unsuspecting victims.”

Yes, apparently they really believe such crazy fairy tales, which rightfully are laughed off by we in the sophisticated West. In fact, Boyer makes a point of noting that, “… a prominent Cambridge theologian, turned to me and said: ‘That is what makes anthropology so fascinating and so difficult too. You have to explain how people can believe such nonsense’.”

Well, with that, I probably have given away my thesis. As I am sure almost all of you immediately discerned, all of the preceding self-aggrandizing “Western world” ethnocentrism was a thinly disguised ruse meant to illustrate our breathtaking hypocrisy with respect to the esteem in which we hold our fanciful delusions in contrast to the ridicule we express toward the silly superstitions of other peoples. In his wonderful book “The God Delusion,” Richard Dawkins accurately articulates some fundamental beliefs associated with contemporary Christianity.

Dawkins writes: