Summations Only

Just keep questioning and all will be okay.

Read his post.It was not understanding that Evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the only model that explains the diversity of life we see that turned him into an atheist, it was the Bible and finding out that the pastors or ministers had been lying to him for all those years that turned him from being a Christian to being an atheist.Christianity itself has no problem accepting either Evolution or the Theory of Evolution.

It is so funny when Creationists make any claim that they follow the scientific method or manner. It is also simply false and once again an example of the misrepresentation and total lack of any culture of honesty similar to what is the basis of Science.

But not very surprising.Think back to when you wandered in here.What is sad at least to me, is that your experience was so totally unnecessary. What seems so often to create "atheists" is that almost everything taught by the CCoI is so false that anyone like you that stops and examines what is being taught, whether it is the science or the theology, really has no choice but to reject both.All I can tell you is that the Christianity that was marketed to you is not the only Christianity out there.

And as I said up thread, you becoming an atheist is fine, in fact I would say that atheism is the more reasonable, logical and consistent position; I just think it is also wrong. But unless and until someone is presented with sufficient evidence to convince them that GOD exists, atheism is certainly a defensible position.

There is evidence of natural causes.Until you can present comparable evidence of the "Designer" you have nothing.It really is that simple.

You like to misrepresent what I write it seems.We can see many causes without any necessity to find some ultimate cause, and we have found many causes. In every case we have found only Natural Causes.Not one single example of supernatural cause has ever been found.There is evidence that the "Scripture" is often patently false.It is wrong to teach falsehoods in school.There is only one model and that is the scientific model.

There is evidence of natural causes and there has never been any evidence of anything BUT natural causes.

Do you have any evidence other than natural causes?

I strike a match it lights.Your turn.

It doesn't matter who struck the match, it is still a totally natural cause.Can you provide an example of a non-natural cause?

It is irrelevant that the match in my example did not strike itself (although the fact that matches can strike themselves was the reason that safety matches were developed), the cause is still a natural cause.Now please present an example of an unnatural cause.Until you can provide evidence of some supernatural cause you have nothing.It really is that simple.Now present an example of a non-natural cause.

Here is the content of your first reply to me in this thread.

quote:

---

There is evidence of natural causes.
Until you can present comparable evidence of the "Designer" you have nothing.

​

It really is that simple.

​

Jar likes to play with words. He likes to leave the very mistaken impression that there is 'evidence' of the cause for the things in existence

​

The actual fact is, that there are things in existence, thats all we actually know outside and disregarding the scripture and other texts explaining existences causes

​

For Jars intimation to be taken seriously as evidence, of the ultimate causes, he would actually have to provide the actual source of these properties, like quarks and other particles, that seem come into existence from nowhere or from another source as yet unknown

​

So no Jar, there is not "Evidence" of the causes of things, as you are trying to imply, there is only evidence that things are in existence. There is big difference between what the facts actually are and what you are intimating

​

Outside of scripture and other texts, we are all in the same boat about the why and how of things

​

That being the case, causation falls to a simple logical proposition of possiblities, of which Id and creation are very much a part of those considerations

​

Both should be taught in the science classroom

​

We have been over all of this to many times to mention
Dawn Bertot

---

I have read that carefully and find no evidence of non-natural causes.I have presented an example of a natural cause.Now it is up to you to present an example of a non-natural cause.

You do not start doing science with an answer, the answer comes as a conclusion based on evidence.If and when you actually present evidence of an all wise mind, then that evidence can be tested.

Not exactly even close Mike.I do not start with an assumption that life can be explained without God. Bring on the evidence and I will happily consider it.I could write "If there is a gritchnitch then ..."It is without meaning just as your assertion is without meaning.