Logical Atheists with your beautifully scientific brains answer me this...

MayCaesar

I have not understood your argument in the second paragraph at all. But the question you asked is pretty easy to answer: every chicken has hatched from an egg, so whatever you believe was the first creature to evolve into something sufficiently resembling modern chicken to warrant being called "chicken" had to hatch from a chicken egg - laid by a creature that did not quite make it to become a chicken itself.

Furthermore, chicken is a very young species, at most a few tens of thousands years old. On the other hand, as far as we know, all dinosaurs (that were ancestors of the chicken) lay eggs, and dinosaurs to back hundreds of millions of years. The egg far outpaced the chicken historically.

Bogan

    An atheist would opine that the universe was never created, it has always existed in one form or another and it always will.     This reasonable premise equates precisely with the suppositious person's premise that a God magically acquired the power to create hundreds of billions of galaxies, containing hundreds of billions of stars, has always existed, and always will.  The "chicken or the egg" premise works both ways as well.   If the universe needed a creator, then who created the creator?   Claiming that "God did not need a creator" is another act of faith which does not answer the question.

Jesus Christ!    This magical. superstitions, religious sheet is boring.    Can this debate site please concentrate on matters which are important?     If religious people want to think that some God who lives in the sky, or worshipping a telegraph pole with give them eternal life, then please keep your superstitious nonsense to yourselves and leave people who do not believe in magic alone.   

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

I have not understood your argument in the second paragraph at all. But the question you asked is pretty easy to answer: every chicken has hatched from an egg, so whatever you believe was the first creature to evolve into something sufficiently resembling modern chicken to warrant being called "chicken" had to hatch from a chicken egg - laid by a creature that did not quite make it to become a chicken itself.

Furthermore, chicken is a very young species, at most a few tens of thousands years old. On the other hand, as far as we know, all dinosaurs (that were ancestors of the chicken) lay eggs, and dinosaurs to back hundreds of millions of years. The egg far outpaced the chicken historically.

May, while you have answered the question according to the letter of the law (technical specs), I think you missed the spirit of Eve's question.  Sure you can go back before a chicken evolves into what we know as a chicken, but I feel she is asking, what if you go back all the way to the very beginning to the first life form.  

The membrane of the earliest life forms would itself serve as its 'shell'. This would have been essential for life.  This is a major problem though in chemical evolution.  A membrane would have to serve some form of protection from destructive materials, while allowing good materials in (homeostasis).  No homeostasis, no life.  And the membrane has to be 'tight' enough to keep deadly small things out, while allowing larger good things in.  For example, the ion of magnesium and other such metals would be deadly to the life form.  If a single 'bad particle' gets in it can cease all processes.  The structure would have been incredibly vulnerable and any change to its environment could be deadly. Even simple membranes have aquaporins, which are channel proteins embedded in cell membranes.  They are 'doors' that  are highly selective, allowing water molecules to pass through while blocking larger molecules and ions, including protons (H+).  They 'rotate' the water molecule.  Without it a proton can enter and destroy the life form.  This seems way to complex for the first life form and even the first membrane, but know that it is essential.

Also, the proto-membrane would not have been complex enough to aid in the process of energy - a requirement for life.  This would have made it difficult or impossible to maintain ion gradients necessary for energy production.  A water environment would also be deadly because it would break down proteins and prohibit the formation of biopolymers essential for many life processes.  A hydrothermal vent environment would cause a quick breakdown in the formation of polymers, due to heat, toxic materials and the movement of water.  

21CenturyIconoclast

@EvePhantom, just_sayin

EvePhantom,

What do you or the runaway from biblical discussion "Just_lying," care who came first, the chicken or the egg? Whereas comically speaking in the 21st Century, you hold dear to your contradicting Creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2 that you alluded to by your quote; "God himself reached His mighty hands down, built a little nest, spoke an egg in to existence and gently set it there in its nice little nest," whereas how sickening sweet and cute is your statement, awwwwwww!  

Here, to save you from a lot of embarrassment in being a pseudo-christian fool, I will only present a few biblical passages relative to your embarrassing, but comical, Creation stories!  You can thank me later.

1.  Like Adam, Jesus as God has a penis, urinates, and defecates!:  “Then God said, “And now we will make human beings; they will be like us AND RESEMBLE US.” (Genesis 1:26)........ Get it?  Huh?

2. Jesus as God set Adam up to have sex with animals FIRST for procreation, ewwwwww!:  “The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him. Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.. (Genesis 2:19-20) 

THINK!  Notwithstanding, in Adam to name 7.77 million animal species that are known at this time, then why did Jesus as god create the animals for Adam as a helpmate FIRST before Eve?!!!   Whereas Adam had a male anatomy for procreation, and so did the animals, male and female! 

Then the Bible fool like you and Just_Lying have to question why your brutal serial killer god Jesus expected Adam to have sexual relations with the animals in the beginning for procreation, when your god was against bestiality to begin with as shown in this passage: 

"If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal." (Leviticus 20:15). Understood Eve? Huh?

3. The comical Creation narratives would be remiss if they didn't include this image of Adam and Eve, where as shown, this faux pas could NEVER HAPPEN in the first place!  Get it? Take your time.  LOL!

CHRISTIANITY, THE PRIMITIVE THINKING BRONZE AND IRON AGE FAITH THAT KEEPS ON GIVING AND GIVING THE ATHEIST GREAT LAUGHTER AT ALL TIMES, PRAISE ZEUS!

.

Barnardot

@EvePhantom This is very easy to answer and it has nothing to do with religion either. 

You see where I work we knock off thousands of foul so I have some idea and experience of what I’m talking about. 

Some times when you rip there guts out you can see eggs with no shells. They are just reddy yellow blobs. So you can see that they started inside the guts of the hen so therefore that is absolute proof that you have to have the hen first that then lays an egg then the chicken haches out of the egg. 

All most people know is that eggs come in cartons.
So definitely the egg comes second.

EvePhantom

@MayCaesar so your logic is that a different species gave birth to an egg that became a chicken is this not a 'magical' evolution of species? has this new species emergence  ever been 'observed'?

EvePhantom

@21CenturyIconoclast so your evidence is a 'painting' and a 'book' penned by men? corruptible men? men struggling for survival during the 'dark ages'?

please present 'scientific evidence' and al consider a more robust response to it all you have managed thus far is some copy pasted bible quotes and a painting, one could compare your efforts to that of a 'religious' person in that none of what you have presented could be considered ...

'empirical evidence' 

EvePhantom

@just_sayin what an important point you have made

when thinking of God we think of a being creating the entire universe, yet the entirety of life in all of its complexity emerged from that 'first' lifeform. it becomes much easier to believe in a God when we think that all God had to do to create all of life was make that 'first' life form

a simple couple of protein base pairs with a cell wall and some amino acids...

that's all it took! ...for all of life to exist in every format it is currently in .. the creation of 1 single living cell

it becomes much harder to disprove God when we consider the 'scientific' material related to the process of mitosis and what this means in its entirety.

it appears you have identified a position where so called scientist are ignoring their own theory's and evidence. you may have cracked life itself open with this one ... just saying!

EvePhantom

@Bogan take a look at just sayings answer, for all of life to exists God only needed to create a single solitary cell a cell from which all life spawned via the process of mitosis.

Its easier when you step away from the bible of men and in to the idea of the underlying potential in the universe just sitting around waiting to be something. it could be said that God is just sitting around and we are making something out of his existence 

MayCaesar

EvePhantom said:

@MayCaesar so your logic is that a different species gave birth to an egg that became a chicken is this not a 'magical' evolution of species? has this new species emergence  ever been 'observed'?

No, because evolution is accumulation of microscopic changes over long periods of time. One species does not become a different species overnight in any meaningful sense - but you are the one who brought up the first chicken, remember? If we are to talk about the first chicken, we have to draw the line somewhere, and that line will necessarily separate the last proto-chicken from the first chicken.

It is much like with adulthood. When does one become an adult? You may be satisfied with the trivial answer, say "When they reach they age of 21", but if you think about it harder, you will see that it makes no sense. Are you seriously telling me that someone can be a child at 2 pm today, but at 3 pm today become an adult? The arbitrary line we draw here serves to remedy some practical issues of separation between children and adults, but it does not mean that the person literally enters a completely different stage in their development over the span of an hour.

EvePhantom

@MayCaesar ah I get you now, its a slower process than my example allows for ok what about this... 

what came first the 'Birth' or the 'Parent' ? 

MayCaesar

@EvePhantom

Okay, let us untangle this. For someone to be called a "parent", they have to have given birth. Conversely, giving birth makes one a "parent". As we can see, the birth and becoming the parent are equivalent: they happen at the exact same moment.

There is a cool mental experiment going back to Ancient Greece, called the ship of Theseus. Suppose you take a ship and start slowly replacing its parts, one tiny plank after another. In the end you have a ship that does not have a single part present in the original ship, so it is clearly a different ship now. The question is: at what moment does the ship of Theseus cease to exist and turn into a new ship?

The answer does not exist: the question is ill-posed. In continuous processes we can only talk about the degrees of different states, not about the states themselves. Water at 5 degree Celcius is cold; water at 85 degree Celcius is hot. What can we say about water at 40 degree Celcius: is it cold or hot? We can only say that it is hotter than water at 5 degrees, but colder than water at 85 degrees. Whether it is hot or cold is a matter of subjective judgement.

Factfinder

EvePhantom said:

@Bogan take a look at just sayings answer, for all of life to exists God only needed to create a single solitary cell a cell from which all life spawned via the process of mitosis.

Its easier when you step away from the bible of men and in to the idea of the underlying potential in the universe just sitting around waiting to be something. it could be said that God is just sitting around and we are making something out of his existence 

Or it could be said that god is nonexistent yet some people sit around making something out of it anyway.

21CenturyIconoclast

@EvePhantom

In relation to your RUNAWAY post in you being a pseudo-christian at best, why did you have to give excuses not to address my post in showing the creation stories are embarrassingly laughable as shown in my link below?
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/189059/#Comment_189059

SCARED?


.

Barnardot

@EvePhantom ;@MayCaesar so your logic is that a different species gave birth to an egg that became a chicken is this not a 'magical' evolution of species? has this new species emergence  ever been 'observed'?

Well yes it has been observed and there is tons of evidence to back it up. Scientists have unearthed fossils of one type of bird in one area and as they radiate out there are variations of they bird since they need to adapt to a different environment. Until you get far away and the bird there is a completely different species. It is very well documented tested and irrefutable evidence that life evolved through natural selection. You just need to read it instead of questioning it.

jack

EvePhantom said:

what came first in this mechanical universe .. the chicken or the egg?

Hello E:

That's a very good question..  The answer is, we don't know..  But, we know ONE of 'em came first because WE'RE the evidence.  The fact that we haven't YET discovered the origins of life, does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that we never will.  Of course, we will!  

We USED to think the Milky Way was the ONLY galaxy..  But, when we found out there was more, nobody beat up the scientists who were wrong..  They were celebrated.  In fact, that's what science is expected to do..

Du*de!

excon

Factfinder

21CenturyIconoclast said:

@EvePhantom

In relation to your RUNAWAY post in you being a pseudo-christian at best, why did you have to give excuses not to address my post in showing the creation stories are embarrassingly laughable as shown in my link below?
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/189059/#Comment_189059

SCARED?


.

Yes she/he/ it is scared. Eve ran from my posts as well. 

21CenturyIconoclast

@Factfinder,  @EvePhantom 

YOUR REVEALING POST REGARDING EVEPHANTOM RUNNING AWAY FROM OUR FACTUAL GODLY POSTS!:  "Yes she/he/ it is scared. Eve ran from my posts as well." 

Yes, poor EvePhantom is not ready for "Prime Time" in this Religion Forum, where EP acts in the same manner as the "Bible Stoopid Duo" RickeyHoltsclaw and his equally bible dumb sidekick, "Just_Lying in running away from our biblical axioms!

As shown in their feeble posts, the ATHEISTS own them and their primitive faith of Christianity, where at the present time, the number one Bible Fool RickeyHoltsClaw is grasping for straws that are not even there to begin with, in my recent Bible Slapping him Silly®️ in my refutations to his ever so weak posts, where what he thought he knew, HE DIDN'T!  LOL!"







And said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3)

FACTFINDER, we know, RickeyHoltsClaw, Just_Lying, and Eve Phantom have minds of prepubescent children to able to believe in the Bible in the 21st Century!  LOL!



.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@21CenturyIconoclast ; It's not the mind of the child that Jesus focuses upon concerning our relationship with Him but the trust-faith that a child places in those possessing authority over them. A child trusts his/her parents fully and there is a sense of admiration and loyalty within a child concerning their parents; it is this very same admiration and loyalty and trust e.g. "faith" that engenders New Covenant relationship with our Heavenly Father; the one who trusts in Jesus as a child trusts in the love of their parents is the one who finds divine relationship with Elohim, eternally. 

In your case @21CenturyIconoclast and @Factfinder, you two are demonically related to your father (John 8:44) and you both are consumed with arrogance and pride and self-righteousness and you will therefore be humbled and shamed in the Day of your Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15).

21CenturyIconoclast

@RickeyHoltsclaw

YOUR COMICAL QUOTE WHERE YOU ARE STILL TRYING NOT TO BE BIBLE STOOPID: "It's not the mind of the child that Jesus focuses upon concerning our relationship with Him but the trust-faith that a child places in those possessing authority over them."
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/189274/#Comment_189274

WRONG AGAIN BIBLE DUNCE, as pseudo-christians have to have the mind of a child, LIKE YOU DO, to enter heaven as explicitly shown in the passages below!

"Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:4)

And said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3)

But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:14)

"Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” (Mark 10:15)

Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” (Luke 18:17)

For you to be even more BIBLE DUMB, you included 2 irrelative bible passages that had NOTHING to do with your wrongful position as shown above, other than to clutter up your laughable post in showing Hebrews 11:6 ......... and Isiah 2 :11, of which you said that you do not follow the Old Testament, therefore you are a "HYPOCRITE" as well!  ROFLOL!!!

NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN THAT IS AS "BIBLE DUMB" AS RICKEYHOLTSCLAW, WILL BE .......?  LOL!

.

21CenturyIconoclast

@Factfinder, @RickeyHoltsclaw  


Factfinder,

As shown in this thread alone, and in other recent threads as well, and if I can be "Frank," and you remain "Factfinder," is RickeyHoltsClaw being BIBLE STOOPID on purpose?  In this way, he at least would be factually known for his outright Bible Dumbness that comes easy for him, where he will never be known for his bible smartness! 

At what point does he take another needed "vacation" like he has done before, to relieve himself from the ATHEISTS that are making him the continued bible fool that he continues to be?  Priceless!









.

Factfinder

21CenturyIconoclast said:

@Factfinder, @RickeyHoltsclaw  


Factfinder,

As shown in this thread alone, and in other recent threads as well, and if I can be "Frank," and you remain "Factfinder," is RickeyHoltsClaw being BIBLE STOOPID on purpose?  In this way, he at least would be factually known for his outright Bible Dumbness that comes easy for him, where he will never be known for his bible smartness! 

At what point does he take another needed "vacation" like he has done before, to relieve himself from the ATHEISTS that are making him the continued bible fool that he continues to be?  Priceless!









.

Yes, he and just_lyin have to be stoopid on purpose to believe their crap. That is a fact. They've totally bought into the delusional idea of a bored god deciding to create hapless souls that will be tortured  forever for its namesake is a 'good' thing. So yes they will always run from the truth as the truth disperses lies, like light disperses darkness.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; @21CenturyIconoclast ;  Is there a debatable premise in there somewhere? You have chosen to die in Hell, do you have a legitimate rebuttal to this truism?

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; @21CenturyIconoclast ;  Is there a debatable premise in there somewhere? You have chosen to die in Hell, do you have a legitimate rebuttal to this truism?

No. You believe in fairytales, we do not. Nothing to debate.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

@EvePhantom

Yep, it's case of "what came first".

Once we know that, we can then extrapolate.


A single celled organism sort of performs both roles, so sort of a chegg, but also sort of more eggy than chickeny.


Or on the other hand, did GODDO say unto Adam...Here's a chicken that I've filled it with eggs for you.

And so GODDO said to unto Eve...Here's  a chicken I prepared earlier, so be a luv and go pop it in the oven...And whilst you're in the kitchen, wash the dishes.

Barnardot

@Fredsnephew ;@EvePhantom
Yep, it's case of "what came first".

Once we know that, we can then extrapolate.

Okay well here’s the most feasible answer. When scientists label a new species they have to say that it varies sufficiently from its predecessors to call it a new species. And since evolution moves forward you would have to say that the mother belongs to the chocken group and the genetic mutation that puts the new species over the line is wats in the egg. So therefore it is the egg that comes first that makes the first chicken not the mom who was the chocken. There is a very blurred line between different species anyway but if you’re going to put a stick in the sand it has to be the egg that comes first.

And I bet that if Adam told Eve to cook the chicken then wash the dishes it would be a matter of which came first. The rolling pin or the frying pan.

. Whatever the case you could extrapolate that Adam would end up with one effing sore head.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; @21CenturyIconoclast ;  Is there a debatable premise in there somewhere? You have chosen to die in Hell, do you have a legitimate rebuttal to this truism?

No. You believe in fairytales, we do not. Nothing to debate.

You don't believe in fairytales and magic?

Many atheists believe that the universe came from nothing.  Many believe life came from non-life.  Many believe that order came from chaos.  Many believe that morals came from matter.  Many believe consciousness came from non-consciousness.  

Even when a miracle is certified by the country of Spain as true, and has over 2 dozen eye witnesses, medical records, doctor's testimony, and extensive cross examination, some atheists will pretend its a fairytale to keep their mythic beliefs alive.  I applaud your faith, I wish I had that much faith. But I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; You do believe in illogical fairy-tales...evolution, big-bang, abiogenesis. I believe in our Creator, Jesus Christ. 

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; @21CenturyIconoclast ;  Is there a debatable premise in there somewhere? You have chosen to die in Hell, do you have a legitimate rebuttal to this truism?

No. You believe in fairytales, we do not. Nothing to debate.

You don't believe in fairytales and magic?

Many atheists believe that the universe came from nothing.  Many believe life came from non-life.  Many believe that order came from chaos.  Many believe that morals came from matter.  Many believe consciousness came from non-consciousness.  

Even when a miracle is certified by the country of Spain as true, and has over 2 dozen eye witnesses, medical records, doctor's testimony, and extensive cross examination, some atheists will pretend its a fairytale to keep their mythic beliefs alive.  I applaud your faith, I wish I had that much faith. But I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

That's nice. I do not believe in fairytales and magic which is a large reason not to believe the bible. What I do believe is the scientific method has answered unknown questions, and provided the bases for technology like what we are using to communicate with now. If that is what you applaud, thanks. I still don't have enough faith to believe in your elf god or the strawman you preposed. What we don't know, we don't know but it's foolish to point to that ignorance in a demonstration of false logic and claim one of hundreds of imagined gods did it. I just don't have enough faith to be a theist.  

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; You do believe in illogical fairy-tales...evolution, big-bang, abiogenesis. I believe in our Creator, Jesus Christ. 

And all the magic, fairytales and mythical folklore that accompanies the narcissist blood thirsty sadistic elf god your self willed ignorance accepts.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; @21CenturyIconoclast ;  Is there a debatable premise in there somewhere? You have chosen to die in Hell, do you have a legitimate rebuttal to this truism?

No. You believe in fairytales, we do not. Nothing to debate.

You don't believe in fairytales and magic?

Many atheists believe that the universe came from nothing.  Many believe life came from non-life.  Many believe that order came from chaos.  Many believe that morals came from matter.  Many believe consciousness came from non-consciousness.  

Even when a miracle is certified by the country of Spain as true, and has over 2 dozen eye witnesses, medical records, doctor's testimony, and extensive cross examination, some atheists will pretend its a fairytale to keep their mythic beliefs alive.  I applaud your faith, I wish I had that much faith. But I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

That's nice. I do not believe in fairytales and magic which is a large reason not to believe the bible. What I do believe is the scientific method has answered unknown questions, and provided the bases for technology like what we are using to communicate with now. If that is what you applaud, thanks. I still don't have enough faith to believe in your elf god or the strawman you preposed. What we don't know, we don't know but it's foolish to point to that ignorance in a demonstration of false logic and claim one of hundreds of imagined gods did it. I just don't have enough faith to be a theist.  

LOL.

Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000 power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!

 

- "...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific tra into the conviction training that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court....The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes...For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly...There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago."
Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe,  Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX:  J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), p. 148, 24,150,30,31).

You are more willing to believe in chemical evolution than you are that there was an intelligence behind life, which statistically is much more probable.  Even though the odds are ridiculous for your faith claim you bitterly cling to it.  Fact, you just aren't being honest with yourself.  

Keep believing that the atheist fairy created life - the odds of that are a lot higher than what you currently believe.

21CenturyIconoclast

@RickeyHoltsclaw

YOUR STANDARD PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN "EXCUSE" SUBSEQUENT TO THE ATHEIST MAKING YOU THE CONTINUED BIBLE FOOL!:
@Factfinder ; @21CenturyIconoclast ;  "Is there a debatable premise in there somewhere? You have chosen to die in Hell, do you have a legitimate rebuttal to this truism?" 

Nope!  No need for any debatable premise to you because I already made you the BIBLE DUNCE where what you thought you knew relative to your "Childs Mind" assertion, YOU DIDN'T, as embarrassingly shown in my link herewith: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/189280/#Comment_189280

^^^ Rickey, DO NOT open this link above because it is for ATHEISTS only to view your feeble bible stoopidity relative to the minds of children that I showed you, and that "biblically contradicted" your feeble assertions! Understood?!  LOL!

NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN THAT IS AS "BIBLE DUMB" AS RICKEYHOLTSCLAW RELATIVE TO THE LINK TOPIC ABOVE, WILL BE .......?  

.

just_sayin

@21CenturyIconoclast
There is no debate point.  You are just bullying Rickey.

When are you going to man up and answer the 2 questions you have been running away from for 5 weeks now?  Seems like you can bully, but you can't answer the science questions put to you:
1) How did a universe pop into existence from 0 space?
2) How did life pop into existence from non-life?

Factfinder

@just_sayin

You could address what I said instead of arguing with yourself.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin, @RickeyHoltsclaw  



.
JUST_LYING'S QUOTE IN TRYING TO DEFEND HIS SIDEKICK RICKEYHOLTSCLAW; LOL!!!:  "There is no debate point.  You are just bullying Rickey."
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/189350/#Comment_189350

Just_lying, I am truly sorry that I as an Atheist continues to make RickeyHoltsClaw the continued Bible fool that he is, and where you are now coming to his defense because obviously you think that he cannot defend himself and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath! Good for you! 

RICKEY:  How does it feel to have another bible inept pseudo-christian like "Just_Lying" come to your needed defense, where he obviously sees that you cannot defend yourself or your bible so he says that I am just "bullying you," where I am just correcting your bible stoopidity! Duh!


Just_Lying, heads up!  Will you also offer other dumbfounded pseudo-christians like Rickey that are being Bible Slapped Silly®️ by the ATHEISTS the help when they need it as well? Yes? LOL!



PSEUDO-CHRISTIANS THAT ARE EASILY BEING "BIBLE SLAPPED SILLY®️" BY ATHEISTS IN THIS FORUM, MESSAGE "JUST_LYING" FOR HIM TO "TRY" AND HELP YOU REGAIN YOUR COMPOSURE WHEN YOU ARE MADE THE BIBLE FOOL! .... LOL!










.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin
  
.
YOUR ONCE AGAIN PITIFUL AND EMBARRASSING QUOTE: "When are you going to man up and answer the 2 questions you have been running away from for 5 weeks now?  Seems like you can bully, but you can't answer the science questions put to you:"

Uh, when you follow my orders shown below that existed way before you wanting me to address your questions!  2+2=4! DUH!


1. YOUR DECEIVING QUOTE THAT YOU WILL ANSWER FOR IN RUNNING AWAY FROM MY MAY 9TH POST TO YOU!:  "I answered your question on May 9 2024 You claimed that Christianity and Judaism are the same religion.  I pointed out to you that they are different.  You are just being Bible dumb."

SHOW ME THE LINK IN THE SAME THREAD WHERE YOU ANSWERED ME!

WAITING.



2. YOUR DECEIVING QUOTE NUMBER 2!:  "I answered your question from June 26 2024 where you asked how the 10 commandments had influenced our country and its founding judicial system.  I pointed you to founders quotes and even the statute on the front of the Supreme Court building itself which is dead center of the building of Moses holding the 10 commandments. 

SHOW ME THE LINK IN THE SAME THREAD WHERE YOU ANSWERED ME!

WAITING.



3. YOUR DECEIVING QUOTE NUMBER 3!: The second June 26, 2004 wasn't even a question, are you really as stu-pid as you come across.  You mentioned 613 commandments in the Old Testament.  I mentioned that Christians are not under the old Covenant. 

SHOW ME THE LINK IN THE SAME THREAD WHERE YOU ANSWERED ME!

WAITING.


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE ...."JUST_LYING".... THAN CANNOT PROVE HIS ALLEGATIONS TOWARDS ME AS SHOWN ABOVE AS A "COWARD, "BUT STILL WANTS ME TO ADDRESS HIS QUESTIONS, WILL BE .....?   LOL!








.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hey Barney.

 @Barnardot

Yep sound, I will run with the egg too.

Though I prefer mine hard boiled rather than runny.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

You could address what I said instead of arguing with yourself.

Fact, you are delulu.  To help you out, I'll play the role of FactFinder.  Pay attention and maybe you can see the faulty logic you've fallen into here.

"That certified to be true by the court of Spain miracle, with all those eye witness testimonies, medical records, cross examined by a team of doctors and professors, with over 1,000 pages of documented evidence, that's a fairytale.  There ain't no evidence cause I said there ain't no evidence.  It's a fairytale cause I said its a fairytale.  Now, you want to know something that ain't no fairytale?  Chemical evolution ain't no fairytale.  Don't tell me the odds, Odds, smodds.  I don't care about it being 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 power.  Who cares? Don't ask me for proof of concept. I said its evidence. That's evidence based right there, and you can't prove otherwise.  It ain't a fairy tale.  Just cause science ain't figured it out just yet, don't mean it ain't true.  I trust the scientific method to prove me right and you wrong.  I know its true, cause you are the one believing a fairytale - not me!  That's the scientific method at work right there.  It ain't no fairy tale, cause I said it ain't." - FactFinder (say it your Yosemite Sam)

RickeyHoltsclaw

@21CenturyIconoclast ; You are unable cognitively to provide a debateable theological premise because you're mentally ill, demonically inclined and theologically ignorant. Please try harder...I don't do links. True and valid faith in Jesus forgives sin when accompanied by honest repentance with a sincere heart...Jesus knows the heart.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@21CenturyIconoclast @Factfinder ; You have denied your only Hope for life...Jesus. You can't provide a sound and logical theological premise due your spiritual ignorance...I've attempted repeatedly to engage you but you continue to obfuscate in stup-idity and arrogance....you'll reap what you're sowing.

21CenturyIconoclast

@RickeyHoltsclaw


COWARD Rickey,

YOUR QUOTE AFTER ME SHOWING YOU THAT YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOUR CHRISTIANITY, WHERE "JUST_LYING" IS TRYING TO DO IT FOR YOU! LOL!:
 "You are unable cognitively to provide a debateable theological premise because you're mentally ill, demonically inclined and theologically ignorant. Please try harder...I don't do links. True and valid faith in Jesus forgives sin when accompanied by honest repentance with a sincere heart...Jesus knows the heart."

1. Yes, the ATHEIST can only wonder in how embarrassing it must be for YOU for others like "Just_Lying" to try and help you defend your primitive thinking faith, because as continually shown, you cannot do it yourself because you have to run away from it with lame little boy excuses as shown in the link below, THAT YOU ARE NOT TO OPEN TO EMBARRASS YOURSELF ONCE AGAIN, UNDERSTOOD?!
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/189359/#Comment_189359 



2. You seemingly don't realize that your brutal serial killer Jesus is watching you in making a BIBLE FOOL of yourself, notwithstanding, Jesus obviously sees you as a total embarrassment to Christianity and this Religion Forum!  So truly sad.  

 "And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account." (Hebrews 4:13)



3. Then, as if your laughable presence within this Religion Forum isn't embarrassing enough for you, you once again slap Jesus in the face by continuing to speak corruptive and obscene language to me as shown in your quote above, where Jesus says you are not to do so as shown below again; 

"Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear." (Ephesians 4:29)

"Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving." (Ephesians 5:4)

"But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth." (Colossians 3:8)

Rickey, tell the ATHEIST in where do you get the authority to NOT follow the passages that Jesus as set forth for the Christian above???!!!

EXPLAIN:

Rickey, just face the facts, you are a "TOTAL BIBLE LOSER" in this Religion Forum, where I said to you before, isn't it time for you to take a needed break from this forum to be able to save yourself from further embarrassment that the ATHEISTS easily give you on a daily basis?  Yes?  Please, at least think about it, because it pains me in seeing you being Bible Slapped Silly®️ all the time, okay?  Thanks. 

.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

You could address what I said instead of arguing with yourself.

Fact, you are delulu.  To help you out, I'll play the role of FactFinder.  Pay attention and maybe you can see the faulty logic you've fallen into here.

"That certified to be true by the court of Spain miracle, with all those eye witness testimonies, medical records, cross examined by a team of doctors and professors, with over 1,000 pages of documented evidence, that's a fairytale.  There ain't no evidence cause I said there ain't no evidence.  It's a fairytale cause I said its a fairytale.  Now, you want to know something that ain't no fairytale?  Chemical evolution ain't no fairytale.  Don't tell me the odds, Odds, smodds.  I don't care about it being 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 power.  Who cares? Don't ask me for proof of concept. I said its evidence. That's evidence based right there, and you can't prove otherwise.  It ain't a fairy tale.  Just cause science ain't figured it out just yet, don't mean it ain't true.  I trust the scientific method to prove me right and you wrong.  I know its true, cause you are the one believing a fairytale - not me!  That's the scientific method at work right there.  It ain't no fairy tale, cause I said it ain't." - FactFinder (say it your Yosemite Sam)

Pathetic.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

You could address what I said instead of arguing with yourself.

Fact, you are delulu.  To help you out, I'll play the role of FactFinder.  Pay attention and maybe you can see the faulty logic you've fallen into here.

"That certified to be true by the court of Spain miracle, with all those eye witness testimonies, medical records, cross examined by a team of doctors and professors, with over 1,000 pages of documented evidence, that's a fairytale.  There ain't no evidence cause I said there ain't no evidence.  It's a fairytale cause I said its a fairytale.  Now, you want to know something that ain't no fairytale?  Chemical evolution ain't no fairytale.  Don't tell me the odds, Odds, smodds.  I don't care about it being 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 power.  Who cares? Don't ask me for proof of concept. I said its evidence. That's evidence based right there, and you can't prove otherwise.  It ain't a fairy tale.  Just cause science ain't figured it out just yet, don't mean it ain't true.  I trust the scientific method to prove me right and you wrong.  I know its true, cause you are the one believing a fairytale - not me!  That's the scientific method at work right there.  It ain't no fairy tale, cause I said it ain't." - FactFinder (say it your Yosemite Sam)

Pathetic.

I think I captured your surly nuance pretty well.



Fact, our comments go like this I provide a certified as authentic miracle, complete with 2 dozen eye witnesses, medical records, doctor's testimony, certified documents, all given under cross examination by doctors and professors, and you say 'That thar ain't no evidence.  That's a fairy tale.'  I then ask you for your evidence of how a universe could pop into existence from zero space, and you give me a classic science of the gaps response like:



I then will provide evidence of the fine tuning of the universe, quoting lots of cosmologists along the way and you will say, 'that thar ain't evidence.  What I said is evidence.  That's from your elf fairy book.'

Do you see the difference?  I cite science to support my case, you appeal to science that doesn't exist for yours.  just sayin

RickeyHoltsclaw

@21CenturyIconoclast ;  

You said: 3. Then, as if your laughable presence within this Religion Forum isn't embarrassing enough for you, you once again slap Jesus in the face by continuing to speak corruptive and obscene language to me as shown in your quote above, where Jesus says you are not to do so as shown below again;

....Show ONE instance where I have spoken obscene or corrupt language to or at you?

just_sayin

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@21CenturyIconoclast ;  

You said: 3. Then, as if your laughable presence within this Religion Forum isn't embarrassing enough for you, you once again slap Jesus in the face by continuing to speak corruptive and obscene language to me as shown in your quote above, where Jesus says you are not to do so as shown below again;

....Show ONE instance where I have spoken obscene or corrupt language to or at you?

Rickey,  why do continue to argue with him?  Don't you know what the Bible says?

 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. - 1 Corinthians 14:38 NKJV

Just let @21CenturyIconoclast be.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

You could address what I said instead of arguing with yourself.

Fact, you are delulu.  To help you out, I'll play the role of FactFinder.  Pay attention and maybe you can see the faulty logic you've fallen into here.

"That certified to be true by the court of Spain miracle, with all those eye witness testimonies, medical records, cross examined by a team of doctors and professors, with over 1,000 pages of documented evidence, that's a fairytale.  There ain't no evidence cause I said there ain't no evidence.  It's a fairytale cause I said its a fairytale.  Now, you want to know something that ain't no fairytale?  Chemical evolution ain't no fairytale.  Don't tell me the odds, Odds, smodds.  I don't care about it being 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 power.  Who cares? Don't ask me for proof of concept. I said its evidence. That's evidence based right there, and you can't prove otherwise.  It ain't a fairy tale.  Just cause science ain't figured it out just yet, don't mean it ain't true.  I trust the scientific method to prove me right and you wrong.  I know its true, cause you are the one believing a fairytale - not me!  That's the scientific method at work right there.  It ain't no fairy tale, cause I said it ain't." - FactFinder (say it your Yosemite Sam)

Pathetic.

I think I captured your surly nuance pretty well.



Fact, our comments go like this I provide a certified as authentic miracle, complete with 2 dozen eye witnesses, medical records, doctor's testimony, certified documents, all given under cross examination by doctors and professors, and you say 'That thar ain't no evidence.  That's a fairy tale.'  I then ask you for your evidence of how a universe could pop into existence from zero space, and you give me a classic science of the gaps response like:



I then will provide evidence of the fine tuning of the universe, quoting lots of cosmologists along the way and you will say, 'that thar ain't evidence.  What I said is evidence.  That's from your elf fairy book.'

Do you see the difference?  I cite science to support my case, you appeal to science that doesn't exist for yours.  just sayin

I see you're delusional. Though your meme has some truth to it. You don't know. But god of the gaps works for you. Cool.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@just_sayin ; I enjoy it

EvePhantom

@21CenturyIconoclast

you seem upset by Rick having his own views and expressing them why is this? as this Ricks Morty I am compelled to inform you that Ricks contributions go beyond this forum, he as he has evidenced lives the life he preaches, how can this then be held against him if it truth that he holds to his claimed principles irl? 

You argue your points from the premise of emotion, your 'anger' is clearly visible in your responses to Ricks comments yet you claim to be the reasonable one? the one who cannot control his emotions? have some decorum you uncivilized troglodyte

Rick and his sermons are welcome here, in fact they comfort me, knowing that I have somebody I can call on judgment day if he turns out to be right, who you gonna call on 21CenturyIconoclast? oh that's right you wont call because you wont 'be' luckily I will come from the paradise beyond and collect you if only to reminisce about the good old arguments we once had now that we can 'stop taking things so seriously' and just chill out care free.

bout that 21CenturyIconoclast bout that you stark raving maniac?    

Barnardot

@just_sayin @RickeyHoltsclaw @Factfinder @EvePhantom Two well known scientists calculated the odds

It doesn't matter whether it was two well-known scientists or what they said and what odds they reckon because all there doing is trying to say the same thing. "Well, it couldn't have happened because blah blah and blah blah." 

The fact is it did happen. 

Life is a result of evolution through natural selection and being in denial and trying to pick petty holes in the confirmed and established evidence is not going to change a thing. 

Denialists have been trying to do that for eons and not one of them has ever been successful at overturning what has been discovered and confirmed. 

I realize that the Bible says this and that, but another fact is that the Bible has been proven to be totally wrong. 

And what is more telling is that these people can keep ranting and raving trying to pick holes in the evidence, yet they haven't at any time presented their evidence of creation which is what they say happened. 

If life was created then hey, bring on the evidence so us realists can start getting picky and say how it couldn't be so. I wouldn't mind at all. 

In fact, it would be quite interesting to find out how creation worked.

EvePhantom

@Barnardot you casually mention the process by which evolution occurs is 'natural selection' 

can you explain the mechanism of natural selection?

and not a copy paste, just your own understanding of the process of natural selection please how do lifeforms pass on genetic information to offspring?