Evolution and the teaching thereof ~

[Charles Sloan]

My point was, is that scientifically, creationism does not stand up to evolution.

Incase anyone is interested, I saw a good program last night, and since on this forum it always tends to be evolutionists defending itself, without creationists never having to answer questions...

This program showed how a fathers genes have the desire to make the baby grow as big as possible, as back when days were tougher, a bigger baby had more chance of a survival, so fathers who had more big babies were more likely to pass on their genes.
However, ofcourse, women cant have to big a babies, or it leads to increased complications, so they have a gene that inhibits baby growth, (both these genes work through nutrient flow in the placenta). Now ofcourse, the more women who had this gene survived, as less would die in child birth.

So you have a case of male and female evolving different reproductive stratagies that are at odds with each other. Why would god have created us from scratch with this imbalance, which can lead to problems such as pre-eclampsia etc. I think this is a great example of defeating the mis-understanding of this topic that evolution makes us all perfectly suited to our environments.

From a creationist stand point this makes little sense, why would god do this?  This genetic difference only makes sense when survival of the fittest is taken into account.

This is why evolution should be taught, as I mentioned before, we can go along without it, but it connects all the aspects of biology into one big thing which makes it easier to understand.

So evolution should be taught because the males genes encourage a baby's growth but the woman's genes limit the growth so she can actually give birth to the child? This is your great evidence that there is no God and the everything just spontaneously evolved from nothing?

Let me just spell this out for you, you are rejecting special creationism for the belief in spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter because you think that the competitive nature of genes in childbirth doesn't make sense. But on the other hand you accept the belief that life just mysteriously appeared from nonliving matter, and you call this scientific and logical.

Your reasoning is bewildering.

Nothing makes perfect sense without it, we always have a question left in biology in nearly ever topic, until we introduce evolution.

Evolution does not answer any questions it only make up stories and promotes itself through lies. Furthermore evolution has contributed nothing beneficial to the world. It has on the other hand contributed to racism, genocide, eugenics, the holocaust and may other atrocities since its inception.

Evolution has thousands upon thousands of examples like this, showing us how it works, creationism has nothing.

You know little of creationism.

Why would we give our kids the opposing view the earth is flat, when we know its round.

We teach our children that God created everything because he did.

[Howdyboyalan]

So evolution should be taught because the males genes encourage a baby's growth but the woman's genes limit the growth so she can actually give birth to the child? This is your great evidence that there is no God and the everything just spontaneously evolved from nothing?

Typical creationist, no its not my great evidence, nad nice way to mis represent my position, accuse me of not believing in god, going to finger me to the inquisition now are you?

Your reasoning is bewildering.

Yes of course it is charles, all the qualified people on this planet, have no reasoning, and you, with no education other than what you read from your spin websites have a monopoly on it all, my my, you showed me, why did I never think to just ask you the meaning of life the universe and everything, what a fool I have been, I am going to go learn chemistry now from a book 200 years old, sounds about right.

You know little of creationism.

There really isnt much of it in the first place, everyting you have ever told me on this website, eg heavy elements arent created in nature have just been outright falsehoods.

[Charles Sloan]

Typical creationist, no its not my great evidence, nad nice way to mis represent my position, accuse me of not believing in god, going to finger me to the inquisition now are you?

Well you pointed to it as if it was the reason that creationism isn't true and why evolution is. And how am I misrepresenting your position, or is this a game where after you labor on misrepresenting my position then you accuse me of doing it? I think that's called psychological projection or something.

But just to let you know evolutionists do believe that before the big bang there was nothing. So either you believe that nothing exploded (life from nothing), or you are some kind of hybrid theistic evolutionist in which case I have no idea what you really believe since you neither accept secular origins nor the Bible.

Yes of course it is charles, all the qualified people on this planet, have no reasoning, and you, with no education other than what you read from your spin websites have a monopoly on it all, my my, you showed me, why did I never think to just ask you the meaning of life the universe and everything, what a fool I have been, I am going to go learn chemistry now from a book 200 years old, sounds about right.

If you want to know the meaning of life, this universe and everything else I suggest you stop scoffing at the Bible and creationism and start looking at the Word of God as an authority. Since its much older than 200 years, and much more reliable than your frail reasoning.

[Howdyboyalan]

But just to let you know evolutionists do believe that before the big bang there was nothing

OK, Ok, Ok, I have a new idea, you go find out, what exactly evolution is, I suggest you start with the first and foremost basic understanding that it is a biological theory, and not a physics one and has nothing to do with the big bang, and come back to me when you stop believing your own rubbish.

[Jimmy]

If you want to know the meaning of life, this universe and everything else I suggest you stop scoffing at the Bible and creationism and start looking at the Word of God as an authority. 

You and the CoC.  Your view on creation is even worse that the CoC on IM.  Both concepts come from a similar misinterpretation of the Bible.  Only creationism is much much worse because we have the data showing that your interpretation is wrong.  In the CoC condemnation of IM, at least there is only a difference in interpretation to consider and not physical data to point one way or the other.

[Charles Sloan]

But just to let you know evolutionists do believe that before the big bang there was nothing

OK, Ok, Ok, I have a new idea, you go find out, what exactly evolution is, I suggest you start with the first and foremost basic understanding that it is a biological theory, and not a physics one and has nothing to do with the big bang, and come back to me when you stop believing your own rubbish.

In all sincerity, it seems through my constant involvement in debating this topic I have come to know more about your position than you do evidently. You may want to separate biological evolution and the big bang theory but the two are implicitly linked because they both attempt to explain origins through happenstance.

[Charles Sloan]

If you want to know the meaning of life, this universe and everything else I suggest you stop scoffing at the Bible and creationism and start looking at the Word of God as an authority. 

You and the CoC.  Your view on creation is even worse that the CoC on IM.  Both concepts come from a similar misinterpretation of the Bible.  Only creationism is much much worse because we have the data showing that your interpretation is wrong.  In the CoC condemnation of IM, at least there is only a difference in interpretation to consider and not physical data to point one way or the other.

Okay so Creationism is now like CoC and their views of IM?

Jimmy that is just stupid, but what should I expect from someone who believes Genesis is figurative. Honestly you just strike me as someone who sold out their faith and compromised the most basic of Biblical principles so you wont seem like a unintellectual fanatic to the world. But just remember that Jesus over 25 times directly refers to the first 11 chapters of Genesis, and the rest of the New Testament does over 200 times. So when you throw Genesis and Creation under the bus just remember what (or who) goes with it.

[Jimmy]

If you want to know the meaning of life, this universe and everything else I suggest you stop scoffing at the Bible and creationism and start looking at the Word of God as an authority. 

You and the CoC.  Your view on creation is even worse that the CoC on IM.  Both concepts come from a similar misinterpretation of the Bible.  Only creationism is much much worse because we have the data showing that your interpretation is wrong.  In the CoC condemnation of IM, at least there is only a difference in interpretation to consider and not physical data to point one way or the other.

Okay so Creationism is now like CoC and their views of IM?

Jimmy that is just stupid, but what should I expect from someone who believes Genesis is figurative. Honestly you just strike me as someone who sold out their faith and compromised the most basic of Biblical principles so you wont seem like a unintellectual fanatic to the world. But just remember that Jesus over 25 times directly refers to the first 11 chapters of Genesis, and the rest of the New Testament does over 200 times. So when you throw Genesis and Creation under the bus just remember what (or who) goes with it.

No it is not stupid.  Both are the result of bad interpretation.  And nobody is throwing Genesis and creation under the bus.  I agree with Genesis just as much as you do.  But I do not force the interpretation to make nonsensical statements as you do.  When it says in Joshua that the sun stood still, I do not make wild assumptions about the physical aspects of the universe.  When it says in Genesis that a  "famine was spread over all the face of the earth, then Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold to the Egyptians; and the famine was severe in the land of Egypt.  The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth,"   I don't make the ludicrous interpretation that the American indians went to Egupt to by grain from Joseph as you do when you read about the flood covering the whole earth.

The argument for your interpretation of Genesis comes from insisting on one particular meaning for the Hebrew word for day.  Even though that word is used many many times throughout the OT in a way that is different from what you insist that it means in the Genesis creation record.  As I said, just bad interpretation.

[Charles Sloan]

The argument for your interpretation of Genesis comes from insisting on one particular meaning for the Hebrew word for day.  Even though that word is used many many times throughout the OT in a way that is different from what you insist that it means in the Genesis creation record.

Like in Exodus 20:9-11 and Exodus 31:15-17?

[Jimmy]

The argument for your interpretation of Genesis comes from insisting on one particular meaning for the Hebrew word for day.  Even though that word is used many many times throughout the OT in a way that is different from what you insist that it means in the Genesis creation record.

Like in Exodus 20:9-11 and Exodus 31:15-17?

Yes

[Charles Sloan]

The argument for your interpretation of Genesis comes from insisting on one particular meaning for the Hebrew word for day.  Even though that word is used many many times throughout the OT in a way that is different from what you insist that it means in the Genesis creation record.

Like in Exodus 20:9-11 and Exodus 31:15-17?

Yes

Exodus 20:9-11 and Exodus 31:15-17 incontrovertibly demonstrate a literal six day creation.

[Jimmy]

The argument for your interpretation of Genesis comes from insisting on one particular meaning for the Hebrew word for day.  Even though that word is used many many times throughout the OT in a way that is different from what you insist that it means in the Genesis creation record.

Like in Exodus 20:9-11 and Exodus 31:15-17?

Yes

Exodus 20:9-11 and Exodus 31:15-17 incontrovertibly demonstrate a literal six day creation.

As I have pointed out here before, you could be right but just don't understand how and why.  


     http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Age_of_the_Universe.asp

[Charles Sloan]

"Don't expect that by a simple reading of those sentences you'll know every detail that is held within the text."

Just another attempt to compromise what Scripture says to fit billions of years into the text.

[Howdyboyalan]

But just to let you know evolutionists do believe that before the big bang there was nothing

OK, Ok, Ok, I have a new idea, you go find out, what exactly evolution is, I suggest you start with the first and foremost basic understanding that it is a biological theory, and not a physics one and has nothing to do with the big bang, and come back to me when you stop believing your own rubbish.

In all sincerity, it seems through my constant involvement in debating this topic I have come to know more about your position than you do evidently. You may want to separate biological evolution and the big bang theory but the two are implicitly linked because they both attempt to explain origins through happenstance.

You mean you know more about the rubbish you and your spin websites have told yourself about evolution.

[Charles Sloan]

You mean you know more about the rubbish you and your spin websites have told yourself about evolution.

Believe what you like, but the Word of God stands sure.

[Jimmy]

"Don't expect that by a simple reading of those sentences you'll know every detail that is held within the text."

Just another attempt to compromise what Scripture says to fit billions of years into the text.

What compromise?

Charles, I am surprised that you would make that statement.  I have a saying that I use concerning the word of God.   It is not mine originally.  I don't know where it comes from, but it is certainly true.  It is, speaking of the word of God,

     "the deeper you go the deeper you get"

It is one of the things that has always amazed me about the Bible.  Unlike other books which sooner or later, depending upon the subject and the basic ability of the reader to comprehend the subject matter, the Bible cannot be fully and completely understood by anyone. 

So many times when I think that I have understood what is being said, one more reading will get me just a little deeper into what God is saying.  Unlike any other book that has ever been written, we shall never fully comprehend what is contained in the text as it is written and as we perceive it.

When God said, "And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day, "  it was not a problem to the ancients what was said and what actually physically occurred, they knew what was meant.   Once we began to understand the relative motions of the sun and the earth, we know that the statement is absolutely true, but it is not literally true.  Again we know what was meant.  But we don't insist upon interpreting it exactly as the ancients would have interpreted it.

You are attempting to assign to the text the exact same understanding to Genesis record of creation as Moses might have perceived it.  That is a mistake.  But for some reason, absolutely incomprehensible to me, you insist on doing so in spite of the vast amount of data availble today which contradicts, not the meaning of the word of God, but the understanding of it as perceived by the ancients to whom it was originally written.

You don't do that for a lot of other passages in the Bible, but for Genesis 1-3, you do it and some (I am not sure about you) make it a test of fellowship or at least would like to.

[Charles Sloan]

What compromise?

Simply compromising the plain meaning of the text to agree with the words of men.

     "the deeper you go the deeper you get"

It is one of the things that has always amazed me about the Bible.  Unlike other books which sooner or later, depending upon the subject and the basic ability of the reader to comprehend the subject matter, the Bible cannot be fully and completely understood by anyone. 

I disagree, I believe the message of the Bible is simple and easy enought to be grasped by children.

So many times when I think that I have understood what is being said, one more reading will get me just a little deeper into what God is saying.  Unlike any other book that has ever been written, we shall never fully comprehend what is contained in the text as it is written and as we perceive it.

Again I disagree, the Bible was written to be understood.

When God said, "And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day, "  it was not a problem to the ancients what was said and what actually physically occurred, they knew what was meant.   Once we began to understand the relative motions of the sun and the earth, we know that the statement is absolutely true, but it is not literally true.  Again we know what was meant.  But we don't insist upon interpreting it exactly as the ancients would have interpreted it.

I believe the events of Joshua 10:12-14 are literal, just as I believe the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ is literal. Both events might defy logic and the laws of physics, but God is not bound by the limits of his creation.

So I believe in the literal miracles recorded in the Word of God.

You are attempting to assign to the text the exact same understanding to Genesis record of creation as Moses might have perceived it.  That is a mistake.

No Jimmy, I am assigning this simple principle to the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

"It means what it says, and says what it means."

But for some reason, absolutely incomprehensible to me, you insist on doing so in spite of the vast amount of data availble today which contradicts, not the meaning of the word of God, but the understanding of it as perceived by the ancients to whom it was originally written.

I have already demonstrated that vast amounts of the data that supports evolution are lies, frauds, and pure antichristian propaganda. So I will always place the Bible over the words of men and reject anything they say that contradicts God and his truth revealed in the Scriptures.

I am on the Lord's side. (Exd 32:26)

You don't do that for a lot of other passages in the Bible, but for Genesis 1-3, you do it and some (I am not sure about you) make it a test of fellowship or at least would like to.

Jimmy, I do it for the entire Bible. I consider every written word in Scripture to be the literal truth and to be accepted as nothing less. I don't fully understand everything in Scripture, but Genesis 1-11 is easy enough for my 5 year old son to understand, and I believe God intended for it to be.

As far as literal 6 day creationism being an acid test for my fellowship, to be perfectly honest it would be to a certain degree. For example, if someone is a hybrid (theistic evolutionist) I would not allow them to teach creation to my children. So their are some degrees I would be reserved in extending the right hand of fellowship to them. But on other topics (the gospel) that wouldn't be a problem.

[OneLung]

I believe the events of Joshua 10:12-14 are literal, just as I believe the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ is literal. Both events might defy logic and the laws of physics, but God is not bound by the limits of his creation.

Many things which are self-evident by today's standards were thought to defy logic and the laws of physics as little as 100 years ago. While Religion and Science seem to be diametrically opposed to each other today, I tend to think they will merge sometime in the distant future.

[zoonance]

What compromise?

Simply compromising the plain meaning of the text to agree with the words of men.

     "the deeper you go the deeper you get"

It is one of the things that has always amazed me about the Bible.  Unlike other books which sooner or later, depending upon the subject and the basic ability of the reader to comprehend the subject matter, the Bible cannot be fully and completely understood by anyone. 

I disagree, I believe the message of the Bible is simple and easy enought to be grasped by children.

So many times when I think that I have understood what is being said, one more reading will get me just a little deeper into what God is saying.  Unlike any other book that has ever been written, we shall never fully comprehend what is contained in the text as it is written and as we perceive it.

Again I disagree, the Bible was written to be understood.

When God said, "And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day, "  it was not a problem to the ancients what was said and what actually physically occurred, they knew what was meant.   Once we began to understand the relative motions of the sun and the earth, we know that the statement is absolutely true, but it is not literally true.  Again we know what was meant.  But we don't insist upon interpreting it exactly as the ancients would have interpreted it.

I believe the events of Joshua 10:12-14 are literal, just as I believe the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ is literal. Both events might defy logic and the laws of physics, but God is not bound by the limits of his creation.

So I believe in the literal miracles recorded in the Word of God.

You are attempting to assign to the text the exact same understanding to Genesis record of creation as Moses might have perceived it.  That is a mistake.

No Jimmy, I am assigning this simple principle to the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

"It means what it says, and says what it means."

But for some reason, absolutely incomprehensible to me, you insist on doing so in spite of the vast amount of data availble today which contradicts, not the meaning of the word of God, but the understanding of it as perceived by the ancients to whom it was originally written.

I have already demonstrated that vast amounts of the data that supports evolution are lies, frauds, and pure antichristian propaganda. So I will always place the Bible over the words of men and reject anything they say that contradicts God and his truth revealed in the Scriptures.

I am on the Lord's side. (Exd 32:26)

You don't do that for a lot of other passages in the Bible, but for Genesis 1-3, you do it and some (I am not sure about you) make it a test of fellowship or at least would like to.

Jimmy, I do it for the entire Bible. I consider every written word in Scripture to be the literal truth and to be accepted as nothing less. I don't fully understand everything in Scripture, but Genesis 1-11 is easy enough for my 5 year old son to understand, and I believe God intended for it to be.

As far as literal 6 day creationism being an acid test for my fellowship, to be perfectly honest it would be to a certain degree. For example, if someone is a hybrid (theistic evolutionist) I would not allow them to teach creation to my children. So their are some degrees I would be reserved in extending the right hand of fellowship to them. But on other topics (the gospel) that wouldn't be a problem.

I) like immersion baptism, male leadership, obedience et al.....

2) but not by theologians

3) except theologians (who can not agree)

4) unless it is subject to interpretation

5) lies and fraud and antichristian propaganda have more to do with politics and hollywood.  No doubt deceit exists, unlike in the church?

6) I wish your son would post more often.  That would thin out the theology and apologetics section tremendously.



None of what you said is lies, fraud or antichristian.  Nor is what Jimmy has to say.  That is why the personalities of science and religion don't seem to mix too well.  The pursuit of truth isn't based on lies, fraud or agenda.   No doubt inapproprite agendas can be found in both camps.   

[Jimmy]

I believe the events of Joshua 10:12-14 are literal, just as I believe the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ is literal. Both events might defy logic and the laws of physics, but God is not bound by the limits of his creation.

Many things which are self-evident by today's standards were thought to defy logic and the laws of physics as little as 100 years ago. While Religion and Science seem to be diametrically opposed to each other today, I tend to think they will merge sometime in the distant future.

They have merged already.  God was the creator of science before He was the creator of religion.  They seem to be diametrically opposed only to those who need them to be diametrically opposed.  Why they should need it is a mystery.  It certainly seems the big bang must destroy their belief in God.  Why that is is also a mystery.

[MegaJedi]

Wow I must say I have never seen a topic like this.  And Charles while I am not a fan of the CoC (Their commerials pushed me away) I do agree with your comments.  I too am a YE who belives Evolution is a lie.  Lucy turned out to be a regular Chimp With peices parts added from area's over 200 feet away, Piltdown man and Nebraska man weree both proven to be hoax's.  Another was invented after they found a toot of an extint pig, another was a part of  a Gibbon.  The list goes on.

[Jimmy]

Wow I must say I have never seen a topic like this.  And Charles while I am not a fan of the CoC (Their commerials pushed me away) I do agree with your comments.  I too am a YE who belives Evolution is a lie.  Lucy turned out to be a regular Chimp With peices parts added from area's over 200 feet away, Piltdown man and Nebraska man weree both proven to be hoax's.  Another was invented after they found a toot of an extint pig, another was a part of  a Gibbon.  The list goes on.

Well that certainly disproves Einstein's theory of relativity right there.  Another one or two like that and quantum physics is right out the window.  With such powerful evidence as that, one has to wonder what all the commotion is about.  Such insight.  Truly phenomenal.  I stand in awe.

Who knows, within a year or two we will bring back the scriptural truth of an earth-centric solar system to our schools.  Hallelujah.

[Howdyboyalan]

Wow I must say I have never seen a topic like this.  And Charles while I am not a fan of the CoC (Their commerials pushed me away) I do agree with your comments.  I too am a YE who belives Evolution is a lie.  Lucy turned out to be a regular Chimp With peices parts added from area's over 200 feet away, Piltdown man and Nebraska man weree both proven to be hoax's.  Another was invented after they found a toot of an extint pig, another was a part of  a Gibbon.  The list goes on.

mega jedi, lucy was not a chimp, and the skeletons you mention are outdated and used by creationists to ignore more modern findings. I seriously invite you to take an open approach, if you pm me, I will send you the skeletal finds that evolution actually cites, not the ones you mention.  No trying to convince you, just pulling the wool from off of your eyes with respect to these 'hoaxes'.

[jessbuds]

here is the question for the evolutionist;

Q. Where do yo think the chicken came from?
A. From the egg
Q.Where does the egg came from?
A. From chicken
Q Where does the chicken came from?
A From the single organism in the water that evolve into a crocodile into a monkey and some evolve into elephant while others evolved and have wings and became the first chicken that bore egg and then a chicken.

Q. Where does the first living organism came from?
A. It evolve from water in the sea.
Q. Where does the water from the sea came from?
A. From the air around 

Can you simplify and make your statement clear and brief?
Well that's what i understand about it!

Okay to make it quick where does the very first atom or sub-atom came from?
What is your answer?
No Answer?

Well i have the answer. The very first thing that came into existence was created by the living God whose existence is from everlasting to everlasting.

Where did you get that idea?
It is not just an idea it is my belief.
Really?
Yes Really and my source of knowledge is the bible. It is the written testament of God to mankind.

Do you believe in God?
No!
Oh i see that is why.
Well what we do to make you believe?
Show me that your God exist and i will believe Him.
Okay.

Think about this...Why people have knowledge, understanding, feelings and emotions? Who created such? Why people have what they called happiness, loneliness and sorrow?

 

[Jimmy]

jessbuds,

Have you ever spoken with an atheist about God, or read any of an atheists assessment of God and religion.  It is usually very apparent that they know almost nothing about God, about the Bible, about who He is and what He is and what He is all about.  As a result of that almost complete lack of knowledge and understanding about God they tend to say some really meaningless things and ask some really meaningless or dumb questions.  Often the questions that are asked are almost impossible to answer satisfactorily since they have no basic understanding of anything about God.

Well the same thing is true about the physics of the universe.  Those who have no fundamental knowledge of physics tend to say some really meaningless things and ask some really meaningless questions.  Often the quesions that are asked are almost impossible to answer satisfactorily since they have no basic understanding of anything of science, whether it is physics, chemistry, cosmology, etc.

[jessbuds]

Such as? i dont think there is a question that has no answer. Can you give some of Atheist questions?

[Howdyboyalan]

jessbuds,

Have you ever spoken with an atheist about God, or read any of an atheists assessment of God and religion.  It is usually very apparent that they know almost nothing about God, about the Bible, about who He is and what He is and what He is all about.  As a result of that almost complete lack of knowledge and understanding about God they tend to say some really meaningless things and ask some really meaningless or dumb questions.  Often the questions that are asked are almost impossible to answer satisfactorily since they have no basic understanding of anything about God.

Well the same thing is true about the physics of the universe.  Those who have no fundamental knowledge of physics tend to say some really meaningless things and ask some really meaningless questions.  Often the quesions that are asked are almost impossible to answer satisfactorily since they have no basic understanding of anything of science, whether it is physics, chemistry, cosmology, etc.

Just as not all christians can be called 'clever' not all atheists can be called dumb. I know a lot of atheists who know not a lot about scripture etc, but about  theological arguments.  It is a poor generalisation.  Many atheists would point to the westboro baptist church etc and generalise all of us as such, let us not fall into the same trap.

[Jimmy]

Such as? i dont think there is a question that has no answer. Can you give some of Atheist questions?

Sure, lots of them.  Start with,

Why did God, who is supposedly perfect, create a world that was is not?

And don't give me any answers out of some book written by a bunch of Jews two to three thousand years ago.

Once you get by that one, we can move on from there.

[Jimmy]

jessbuds,

Have you ever spoken with an atheist about God, or read any of an atheists assessment of God and religion.  It is usually very apparent that they know almost nothing about God, about the Bible, about who He is and what He is and what He is all about.  As a result of that almost complete lack of knowledge and understanding about God they tend to say some really meaningless things and ask some really meaningless or dumb questions.  Often the questions that are asked are almost impossible to answer satisfactorily since they have no basic understanding of anything about God.

Well the same thing is true about the physics of the universe.  Those who have no fundamental knowledge of physics tend to say some really meaningless things and ask some really meaningless questions.  Often the quesions that are asked are almost impossible to answer satisfactorily since they have no basic understanding of anything of science, whether it is physics, chemistry, cosmology, etc.

Just as not all christians can be called 'clever' not all atheists can be called dumb. I know a lot of atheists who know not a lot about scripture etc, but about  theological arguments.  It is a poor generalisation.  Many atheists would point to the westboro baptist church etc and generalise all of us as such, let us not fall into the same trap.

Ok, I will just say that most who call themselves atheists are generally biblically challenged.

[Howdyboyalan]

Q. Where do yo think the chicken came from?
A. From the egg
Q.Where does the egg came from?
A. From chicken
Q Where does the chicken came from?
A From the single organism in the water that evolve into a crocodile into a monkey and some evolve into elephant while others evolved and have wings and became the first chicken that bore egg and then a chicken.

Your answer
Q. Where do yo think the chicken came from?
A. From the egg
Q. Where did the egg come from
A. From a creature slightly less 'chickenish' than the one that came after
Q: Where did the slightly less 'chickenish' creature come from?
A: From the egg
Q: where did the egg come from
A: From a creature that was slightly less chickenish than the slightly less chickenish chicken that gave birth to the first chicken.

[Jimmy]

Q. Where do yo think the chicken came from?
A. From the egg
Q.Where does the egg came from?
A. From chicken
Q Where does the chicken came from?
A From the single organism in the water that evolve into a crocodile into a monkey and some evolve into elephant while others evolved and have wings and became the first chicken that bore egg and then a chicken.

Your answer
Q. Where do yo think the chicken came from?
A. From the egg
Q. Where did the egg come from
A. From a creature slightly less 'chickenish' than the one that came after
Q: Where did the slightly less 'chickenish' creature come from?
A: From the egg
Q: where did the egg come from
A: From a creature that was slightly less chickenish than the slightly less chickenish chicken that gave birth to the first chicken.

Howdy.  That is really not a very good answer.  Even for someone who believes in evolution.

[Howdyboyalan]

it was a joke 

[Jimmy]

it was a joke 

Ok, I can go with that.

[Charles Sloan]

And Charles while I am not a fan of the CoC (Their commerials pushed me away) I do agree with your comments.

If your talking about the CoC as in the "Churches of Christ", I am not affiliated with that group.

[jessbuds]

Sure, lots of them.  Start with,

Why did God, who is supposedly perfect, create a world that was is not?

And don't give me any answers out of some book written by a bunch of Jews two to three thousand years ago.

Once you get by that one, we can move on from there.

This is not an atheist question? This a question clarifying things about God's attributes and character.

Atheist suppose to ask questions that should start like; if there is a God.

That guy believe that there is a God and is pretending that there is none to make argument. In short not a christian just like my father but when in grave danger or in deep trouble he called unto God.