Since you are too lazy to search myu posts on this topic, I will spell it out for you here. The following article details very nicely why the theory of Evolution cannot be maintained:


In the 1970's a British astronomer by the name of Sir Frederick Hoyle set out to calculate the mathematical probability of the origin of life from a primordial soup environment. Applying the laws of thermodynamics, chemistry, and mathematical probability he calculated the odds of the spontaneous generation of the simplest known free-living life form on earth, a bacterium.
Hoyle and his associates knew that the smallest conceivable free-living life form needed at least 2,000 independent functional proteins in order to accomplish cellular metabolism and reproduction. Starting with the hypothetical primordial soup he calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of a single amoebae. He determined that the probability of such an event is one chance in ten to the 40 thousandth power. Prior to this project Hoyle was a believer in the spontaneous generation of life. However, his opinion changed 180 degrees.
Consider this, to win the state lottery you have about one chance in the ten million (10^7). The odds of winning the state lottery every single week of your life from age 18 to 99 is one chance in 4.6 x10^29,120. Therefore, the odds of winning the state lottery every week consecutively for eighty years is more likely than the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of an amoebae!!!!
When Hoyle completed his project he stated that, "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to the 40 thousand naughts (zeros) after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the entire theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence!"

NOW HERE COMES THE SHOCKER!!
Hoyle and his associates only calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of the proteins in the cell. He DID NOT calculate the chance formation of the DNA, RNA nor the cell wall that holds the entire cell together. A more realistic estimate was calculated by Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist. Morowitz imagined a broth of living bacteria that were super-heated so that all the complex chemicals were broken down into their basic building blocks. After cooling the mixture, he concluded that the odds of a single bacterium re-assembling by chance is one in 10^100,000,000,000. This number is so very large that is would take several thousand blank books just to write it out. To put it all in perspective it is more likely that you and your entire extended family would win the state lottery every week for a million years than for a bacterium to form by chance!

http://malleyz.com/thinkaboutit/sirfredrickhoyle.shtml

Boobmaster - I cant be bothered to argue a point i'm not really interested in with someone who believes in it as strongly as that, Religion doesnt interest me and i'd rather live my life otherwise. I'll let you follow your religion and let that be that.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Your claim that 'stupidist' isn't a word is all the evidence I need to tell that you are a complete idiot. Why do you say this. Because it isn't in the dictionary?

Your second point is further evidence that you don't know jack shit about science. THEORIES CAN NEITHER BE PROVEN NOR DISPROVEN; THEY CAN ONLY SUPPORTED OR NOT SUPPORTED. Microevolution is supported; macroevolution is unsupported.

Lack of interest in the most important questions to ever face mankind is the sign of a simple man.

I believe than when i die, I die. and i dont give a shit about it.

If thats simple then i guess i am too.

I promise you that you will care about the issue when your death is imminent.

Why don't you just tell him to come down here and have a nice talk with us...set us straight. That would shut those pesky atheists up.

He used to talk to people, right?

He could appear to you in a blaze of light and you still probably wouldn't believe.

I still want to hear your evidence for claiming that 'stupidist' isn't a word.

http://www.google.com/search?q=stupi...utf-8&oe=utf-8

See the dictionary.

Ya, I would, but the trouble is he won't. Imagine the problems he could fix if he would just make an appearance, issue a press release and perform some miracles like the old days.

No more bogus religions, no more non-believers. What's the point of him not proving his existence to the world? Anything I've heard in the past sounds like a convenient way of hiding the fact something doesn't really exist.

Ah! I see your point. Misspelling. -ist and -est are spelling variants of the same form (superlative). Words vary as to which of these suffixes they use. I used the wrong one.

hence the response - "StupidIST" isnt a word.

how about kissing and making up ? :glugglug

Im am not getting anywhere with this so it is pointless to continue.

O ye of little faith! Where would we be if Jesus thought like that?

wrong. A lot of people MISSPELL this word, based on analogy with words which take the suffix variant -EST. A misspelling of a word is NOT A DISTINCT word in and of itself. It is a misspelling of that word. You should have said that I misspelled the word.

Mock on, asshole. You'll know the truth soon enough.

holy shit. thanks for my hardest laugh of the day....:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Your post is a perfect example of why most atheists are simpleminded peons who know JACK SHIT about science.

There is no such thing as the supernatural.

Anyone who has taken a freshman level science course can tell you that statements like this are idiotic. Science CANNOT PROVE THE NONEXISTENCE of something. It doesn't even try. If you were really as science minded as you claim, you would have said something like "Available evidence does not prove the existence of the supernatural." Note that this is not a belief that I share.

Science cannot support the existence of any of the other of the things you mention in your first paragraph. However, there is much unexplained phenomena in the world that could certainly lead to the very reasonable conclusion that such things do exist. (I am not making any claims to this effect).

Science would be in a much better position to challenge the existence of these things if it could provide solid alternative explanations for such phenomena. To date, alternative explanations of this sort are lacking.

Don't you get it you twit, all that exists is the natural world. The only place the supernatural exists is in the human brain. Accept it and then get over it.

This statement further demonstrates your total ignorance. This is YOUR OPINION. It is not backed up by scientific data. SCIENCE COULD NEVER PROVE A STATEMENT LIKE THIS. You clearly don't understand science if you think it can.

"There is no Santa Claus, there is no tooth fairy, there aren't any fairies at the bottom of the garden and there sure as hell isn't any fucking God."

Again, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO BASE THIS ON EXCEPT YOUR OPINION. You CANNOT APPEAL TO SCIENCE BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHINBG TO SAY EITHER WAY.

I was once told that it is IMPOSSIBE to reason with an atheist. You have shown me that this is true. If we use your logic, we would have to deny the existence of a number of things which most people accept without question.

Scientists tell us that the sun radiates millions of tiny particles called neutrinos, which are invisible to the naked eye. Before they were discovered, you would have been justified in denying their existence. Their discovery, however, has shown your claim to be false. How do you know that conclusive evidence for the supernatural, or God, or even the fucking tooth fairy will not be found one day. This is precisely why true scientists would NEVER utter statements like yours.

You are simply relying on faith that God does not exist. You are truly a moron if you think otherwise.

http://www.churchofsatan.com/Graphic.../CSPosterG.jpg

http://www.churchofsatan.com

THIS IS THE BEST RELIGION. FREE PUSSY FOR ALL. JOIN TODAY!

How fucking old are you anyway? This is the kind of shit I would expect out of a 14 year old.

i'm 14? you're the one that believes in an imaginary guy in the sky.

do you also believe in santa claus, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy and the boogey man?

It was true.

Have you read any of my posts in this thread? Are you capable of understanding any of them? The probability that life spontaneously came into existence (in the absence a CAUSAL event) is so astronomically low that any no rationally thinking person can continue to seriously consider evolution as a viable theory of the origin of life.

Sir Fredrick Hoyle has calculated the probability of such an event to be on par with that of a strong wind sweeping through a junkyard and randomly assembling the pieces of junk there in into a working 747 jet. No sane person would believe that a 747 jet could be assembled in this way. Yet thousands of otherwise intelligent scientists continue to believe that life spontaneously appeared without a cause.

If life did not spontaneously appear out of nowhere, then how did we get here? The only reasonable alternative is that we were created by a creator. Are you so stupid that you can't see the logic in my argument?

First of all Boobmaster, calm down.

Secondly, why is atheism so threatening to you? I have no absolute proof that there are no gods, as you seem to require of us atheists. But the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. There are something like 10,000 gods in human mythology (including Christianity and Islam), and yet not one single piece of verifiable evidence left by any one of them at any time. Doesn't that seem strange to you? Don't you think that a supreme being would be obvious; I mean how does such a powerful thing manage to stay hidden, and why would they? Where's the talking burning bushes? The giant footprints? If there is a supreme being why doesn't he just appear and put an end to the doubt? Isn't the total lack of evidence of the existence of any gods telling?

I have no proof that there are no gods, but I am fairly confident in my belief that they are bullshit. I read something a Christian once wrote that went like this: "I would rather be a Christian and then discover on my death that I was wrong and there really was no God, than be an atheist and discover on my death that I was wrong and there was a God and I have to burn in hell forever." That's exactly why I AM an atheist; I would rather risk burning in hell than be manipulated and bullied into turning off my brain and believing something for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

There are no gods. But post here if you come across any evidence, any at all.

So women being created from a rib, and stories of a talking snake with a cursed apple sounds more logical?

But there IS evidence, of an indirect nature (see my earlier posts). Direct evidence is impossible given the nature of the object of study. God is said in the bible to be 'spirit'. 'Spirit' is something which is undetectable by the senses. As a result, it is not an object which can be successfully studied by science. That is a far cry from saying it does not exist.

Humans are capable of hearing sounds within a specific frequency range. There are sounds which we cannot hear because they occur at higher/lower frequencies than what we are capable of processing.

Have you ever used a dog whistle? You blow on it but nothing seems to come out (i.e., you can hear anything). Dogs, however, will react to the whistle because they hear a sound. That sound is on a frequency higher than what humans can process.

We currently don't have the technology to 'discover' so-called spirits. This DOES NOT MEAN that they don't exist. Why is it so hard for you to following my reasoning?

The difference here is that these frequencies that we can't hear can easily be measured.

Where do I say that the bible should be taken literally, word for word. I don't believe that it was ment to be taken literally. The authors use conventional literary techniques (e.g., metaphor, etc.) to make points which I believe imply deeper truths.

have you been saved yet?

Until we developed the technology to measure such sounds, would you have been justified in stating that they do not exist? You would have been wrong. How do you KNOW that we will not one day have the technology to measure 'spirits'?

FUCK OFF, NEWB! :321GFY

It's not hard at all for me to follow your reasoning, because it's quite simple.

I appreciate your admission that there is no "direct evidence" (what other kind is there?) of the existance of any god. Every day more and more people realize the same thing and more and more people identify themselves as atheists as a result.

Based on your post above, I have news for you, you don't believe in god, you believe in the idea of a god and that one might be known some day.

You are a moron! There is a difference between science and faith.

You must have been raised a Christian, because you have a lot of aggression in you. Deuteronomy 28:15-68

Nothing is more sinful than a Christian Pornographer.

If you don't believe in God, how can you believe in the concept of 'sin'?

Also, I think a Christian murderer would be more sinful than a Christian pornographer.

BOOBMASTER; how many times are you gonna preach the same old crap on this board?

You are beginning to sound like a broken record and you are starting to lose your entertainment value.

I wish you would hurry up and start that bloody adult program of yours so you could try to pretend to be all knowing about something else.

Oh BTW you don't have to reply I already know exactly what you are gonna say:

FUCK OFF NEWB:321GFY :321GFY :321GFY

:tongue:

You again?

The other reason I am an atheist is that gods seem to inspire so much nastiness in their believers...

God bless you Boobmaster for being such an effective ambassador of Jesus Christ. :stoned

This has been a very entertaining thread Dark Jedi. It's almost as entertaining as my 20 minute conversations with the old ladies who sell the Awake/Watchtower magazines on the street. They get so excited when I tell them Jesus was a pimp.