Questions for the Atheists

[SioDenz]

---

Well perhaps you could have clicked on the link to help you answer your own question. It would have helped you a whole lot. Don't be lazy.

Wa lagi Physical Evidence kay cge pa pangita sa Missing link, therefore Theory ra tawn na. Klaru kaayu sa pagsugod palan daan "Scientist Believe..." nga statement, wala juy Physical Evidence tawn puro Theory.

"Scientist Believe..." nga statement mura man ni ug FAITH same sa Theist, way Physical evidence pero ni Believe kunu. Same ra jud

DILI mu mutoo ug Ginoo kay way PHYSICAL EVIDENCE nya MUTOO mu sa mga Scientist nga wala say PHYSICAL evidence nga gipakita kay ila gibasihan ang ila ra sad nga Personal nga PAGTUO or Theory. Di ba murag kataw anan

[orcgod]

Given by God that we believed in, From Moses, Abraham, to Jesus. How you Atheists, where did you get your Absolute basis for Morality? oh sorry what i mean is RELATIVE basis or MORALITY. Does Atheist have a Universal basis of Morality?

Atheist relies on its pesonal judgement. ka dugay ba kasabot.
You wrote it yourself

THEIST = universal rule

ATHEIST = individual rule.

Nya mangutana pa gyud ka if we have universal basis of morality! pag sure sir uy.

[pinoy_09]

THEIST = universal rule.

ATHEIST = individual rule.

Mas maayo ang ATHEIST. why? because its you that makes your own choices. If you play with the universal rule, then you wont have a choice, right?

Wala, because they rely on other people to think for them.

Walay intellectual freedom.

[Hammer_and_Sickle]

Yeah, I'm dumb---so that's supposed to make you smart? High five if it makes you feel good.

Sorry, man, but I view morality in an evolutionary perspective.

yeah, in the field of social science i can trash you like hell focker hehehe

but in biological science, i can keep up with you my firend
nahhh, i don't regard me self as smart,coz i'm dumb, ****ing dumb hahahaha
that's why i'm enrolled as a college student,

if your views in morality is on evolutionary perspective, there's nothing wrong with it,
i just hope, that you have enrolled or will enroll in a Ethics class,

[orcgod]

Wa lagi Physical Evidence kay cge pa pangita sa Missing link, therefore Theory ra tawn na. Klaru kaayu sa pagsugod palan daan "Scientist Believe..." nga statement, wala juy Physical Evidence tawn puro Theory.

"Scientist Believe..." nga statement mura man ni ug FAITH same sa Theist, way Physical evidence pero ni Believe kunu. Same ra jud

DILI mu mutoo ug Ginoo kay way PHYSICAL EVIDENCE nya MUTOO mu sa mga Scientist nga wala say PHYSICAL evidence nga gipakita kay ila gibasihan ang ila ra sad nga Personal nga PAGTUO or Theory. Di ba murag kataw anan

Ehem, just so you know, Missing Links are already found. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE SOME VIDEOS? id love to share them so you will learn.

If i share these videos, are you sure you will watch it? coz if you do, ill ask you questions about it. But of course, how silly am i for wasting time to give you video links, when you are not eager to learn more and EVOLVE!

[pinoy_09]

yeah, in the field of social science i can trash you like hell focker hehehe

but in biological science, i can keep up with you my firend
nahhh, i don't regard me self as smart,coz i'm dumb, ****ing dumb hahahaha
that's why i'm enrolled as a college student,

if your views in morality is on evolutionary perspective, there's nothing wrong with it,
i just hope, that you have enrolled or will enroll in a Ethics class,

You're STILL a college student? No wonder you sound like one.

[treize]

You fail again sir. Mao ni style ninyo trying to treat scientific books/theories in the same league with your bible. Mao ni style sa mga creationists trying spread deception and half truths.. A simple common sense and logic would tell you that Darwinian Evolution had come a long way since Darwin postulated the theory 150 years ago.. The Origin of Species is the theory itself in the early stages and has now evolved with the contribution of countless biologists around the world..

Tan-awa ra gud na imo limk kung masaligan ba na:

SCIENCE VS EVOLUTION 9

klaro kaayo ang site imo gihatag is from those religious bigot fundamentalist organization trying to be scientists kuno..

Compare sa akong link nga gihatag gikan sa University of Berkeley:

Welcome to Evolution 101!

Istoryans, guys you be the judge..

If Darwin's theory didn't have any flaws or was proven then why do you think there are lots of scientists who criticized disproved his theory? It should have stand up to scrutiny on it's own merits if it's correct.

Humans have 46 chromosomes (13 from each parent) while apes and chimpanzees have 48(Chromosome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Can you tell me how apes could evolve to humans losing 2 chromosomes? When according to the rules of meiosis that it's completely impossible..

If you would be so kind to enlighten me.

[Hammer_and_Sickle]

Wala, because they rely on other people to think for them.

Walay intellectual freedom.

FYI lang ha,basing lang sa imong statement above,i think you're implying that freedom should be, given as an absolute right to everyone(you can deny that you're not implying it), well my friend, your wrong, coz in our society, there is no such thing as aboslute freedom. i'm sorry, for crapping you again, i think you need to go back to:



hihihihihi

[pinoy_09]

Can you tell me how apes could evolve to humans losing 2 chromosomes?

Apes evolved to humans? Get your evolution right.

[treize]

This one's from an ex-evolutionist.

One Base Strand
Evolution had a very serious problem in the 1970's. There wasn't one piece of biological evidence supporting the evolution of life. Then someone discovered in the late 1970's that every living organism on this planet has the same base strand of DNA. Evolutionists quickly grabbed hold of this as biological proof that we all have one common ancestor. It became their biological banner.

You have to understand that evolution is a random process which requires the use of mathematics to analyze its probability. So, instead of blindly swallowing this claim, I decided to analyze the claim with the use of genetics and mathematics to see if it really proves evolution or does it actually prove creation (remember that at this time I was still an evolutionist.) Below is my analysis.

In one strand of DNA there are more than one billion molecules with 1/3 of them being the programming nitrogen bases. Since there are four different nitrogen bases used for the programming, we have 333+ million to the fourth power different possible molecular structures which equals 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power. For simplicity's sake, I rounded this down to 122 x 10 to the 32nd power. It actually works out to the advantage of the evolutionists giving them the benefit of the doubt.

This is very important because, in a random process, any and all of the different structures can come into existence at the same time. Now let's make a very conservative assumption favoring evolution that only one in one billion of these structures could support any form of living organism. To do this you subtract the number of zeros in one billion (9) from the exponent 32. This equals 23, so we still have 122 x 10 to the 23rd power possible DNA strands that should have come into existence at the same time.

Next we make another very conservative assumption favoring evolution that only one in one billion of these strands would have survived four billion years of evolution. This means that for every DNA strand that survived until today, 999,999,999 strands became extinct which is extremely conservative. This would be a very high rate of extinction. That leaves us with 122 x 10 to the 14th power which is 122 with 14 zeros behind it. It would look like this: 12,200,000,000,000,000. There is a little problem with this; there are only two to three million different species on the planet or 2,000,000 to 3,000,000.

With this in mind, by the most phenomenally conservative estimate which grossly favors evolution to the extreme, there must be tens of thousands of different base strands of DNA for evolution to be true. This is an absolute requirement.

The concept of one ancestor violates the fundamental principles of a random process in relation to genetics and mathematic probabilities. For evolution to be true it is required that there be so many different base strands of DNA that we must be able to accurately place every organism on Earth into a specific genetic family and not be able to move species around the way evolutionists do today.

Then how do you get one base strand in all organisms?

Let's say we go where man has never gone before to the planet I mentioned on the page for the feasibility analysis. When we decide to use molecular construction of living organisms to farm life on our new planet, would you reinvent a new base strand of DNA for each new organism or use the same base strand and simply make the modifications and additional strands needed for each new organism? Of course you are not going to reinvent the DNA strand every time you create a new organism. That would be stupid. So every organism on our planet would have the same base strand. Therefore, a single base strand of DNA for all organisms proves creation by design and disproves evolution. On the other hand, I guess this does mean that we all had one common ancestor...God. See, we evolutionists were partly right.

DNA