Thanks ramon, I haven’t had time to look at the link, but I will give it attention sometime this week. You know it’s happened in many, many of my researches that one thing has always came to conclusion….the evidence was unsupported effectively, a hoax or just plain ol’ disproven. I have researched the primate theory’s that were produced to prove evolution, but they ALL turned out to be merely hoax. I will however still take an openminded look at the article. And to the guy about dinosaurs…..really? Just start another thread on that topic and I’ll step in with a few cents. As for disproving evolution to prove Christianity, nah…we’re not trying to prove the existence of our God, we’re just trying to steer people away from this particular ineffective way of proving the position of creation. I’ll post more soon on killing the not so big bang theory. It’s not hard to do.

This is more nihilistic than atheistic.

“Its funny I’m 17, and know alot more about life than that psuedo intellectual walking around…whats his name? Oh yeah, Dawkins.
He makes athiest look bad.”

You really, really don’t. You make non-atheists look bad in several ways, but you begin by saying “excuse spelling” (and grammar, apparently). I’ll forgive you and assume that English is your second language, but sadly that has little bearing on your (lack of) logic.

“If there is no God, then morals would arise from matter hiting matter by accident until we appear millions of years later to argue about it.”

And? Even if we assumed this to be true, it doesn’t advance your position. The sentence is meaningless without elaboration.

-”If God is not real then we came from nothing right?” etc. etc.-

Erm, excuse me? What we’re saying is that your notions of god are *highly* implausible. That does NOT mean we think “we all came from nothing”. You may as well delete the entire middle paragraph in which you “disprove” that we all came from nothing. Also, the fact that we all didn’t come from nothing in no way validates your particular conception of what god is. Logic 101.

You claim that even atheists have purpose (and that they think they have purpose, which you call “delusion”), but then in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE you say that there are high suicide rates in Europe because people lack purpose. What? I find it both ignorant and offensive for you to suggest that we cannot have a purpose without a god.

Why do people keep repeating the “evolution is on the way out” nonsense? Clearly they have been following neither the (recent) legal history of evolution vs. ID nor any mainstream scientific research.

Also, to say that evolution relies on “chance” or “randomness” is to provide clear, damning evidence that you have no idea how evolution works. Evolution is driven by natural selection, which is just about as far from chance as you can get. And, as skoot pointed out, even totally disproving evolution would not provide ANY evidence for a specific intelligent creator.

Also, @ Mitchell, there’s *plenty* of evidence for the common ancestry of humans and other primates. Have you been trained to look at the archaeological evidence?
I invite you to view this excellent outline of current research on fossil hominids: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

I have a simple one word answer to all the idiotic attempts at theists trying to grasp that a supernatural being created all of us approximately 10,000 years ago

Dinosaurs

This argument is too basic for me to even try and cover all of the errors in just on post, so I won’t attempt to refute it. I suggest being a bit more open-minded.

disagree ,, i believe in god so much I have only one question just for you, from where the first humen came ??

i just think that their isnt enough facts on both subjects to prove that either belief is right or wrong (sorry im agnostic -.-) i mean really? god could exoist but science has more proof than god creating everything in a couple days

Skoot, that is a brilliant analogy. Consider it stolen.

Here’s what I don’t get: Why do Christians think that punching holes in evolutionary theory is evidence that the Judeo-Christian god exists? Why is “God” always the default answer to something we can’t explain?

For example: Let’s say you and I sat down at a table with a standard, brand new deck of cards. I draw one card out of the deck and lay it face-down on the table so that neither of us knows what it is. Each of us has to guess what is on the other side of the card. If one of us gets it right, the other has to pay us $1000.

Let’s say you guess it’s the 10 of Diamonds, and I guess it’s a picture of Jesus. You scoff at me because of how silly my guess is, knowing that there’s know way I’ll win.

Now, I can punch a hole in your guess by looking through the remaining cards and finding the 10 of diamonds in the stack… evidence that your guess was wrong. But does that prove that the mystery card really has a picture of Jesus on it? Should you have to assume the Jesus card exists, just because I provided evidence against your guess? No! If I wanted to get paid, you’d demand to see what’s on the other side of the card. You’d demand some kind of proof or evidence to support my guess before giving in to such an absurd claim.

That’s how atheists feel when religious people think they’re proving God’s existence by punching holes in science’s explanations.

Do I know for certain that we descended from a common ancestor as other primates, shaped by our environment and survival of the fittest? No… but it sounds more plausible than “God did it.” Do I know for certain that the “Big Bang Theory” is how it all began? No… but considering the evidence, it sounds more reasonable than “Arts and Crafts Week with the Big Man in the Sky.”

The idea that atheists should have to disprove the existence of the Judeo-Christian God is absurd. Otherwise, Christians still have to disprove the existence of Zeus, Ra, Apollo,…