Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.

I don't see it spread out to that extent. Reviewers have noted that the first appearance for evidence of life seemed to happen relatively shortly after the newly-formed planet cooled sufficiently. Then about 600 million years later came the Permian explosion of the early multicellular forms.

 

The quarks in your body are taking turns with some that are popping in and out of existence while you pretend to be a non-participant.

 

The theory of evolution (Darwinism) seems to be full of holes. Is there a sample of any transitional forms between the land-dwelling predecessor of the whale and the first marine version?

 

I don't see how objective physical reality can be considered the totality without ignoring subjective factors (i.e. consciousness and quantum functions). Doing so seems to be a demonstration of the limitation of knowledge, i.e. incomplete knowledge. What support is there for the idea that objective physical reality is the totality?[/QUOTE]

 

Get real, the rules are one thing and the truth is another.

Yeah, well I also miss a lot by not accessing porn sites, but I don't figure that's a problem either.

 

There is little difference between agnostics and atheists. I don’t pretend there is. The most devote atheist would be a believer , as we all would, with evidence.

 

false, there is a huge difference to the point they are 100% incompatible with eachother.

 

Sure, only if one believes in god.

 

false, agnostics do not believe in god

 

RE: Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.
⁜→ Gelecski7238, dagosa, Jonsa, Kokomojojo, yguy, et al,

(COMMENT)

Bringing spirituality (a belief in the supernatural) into an experimental umbrella procedure that is driven by the scientific method → has no effect on the process → and no impact on the experimentation results.

There are any number of reasons why an experiment using the scientific method may have results other than those expected. The interference by supernatural (forces beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature) influences may be the least significant of suspected errors in terms of probability; but still a probability.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Estimates put the origins of molecular life at 3.8 billion years and fossilized EVIDENCE dates back to 3.2 billions years ago.

https://www.livescience.com/63199-oldest-life-on-land.html

 

No one really needs fossilized transitional forms any longer now that we have Phylogenetics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics

 

Prove there are not pink unicorns, There are people who just do not believe in the supernatural like an invisible man in the sky. You have to suspend all logic

 

Several countries have banned the Scientology cult because it is a fraud and nothing more than a crime ring.

 

It is not up to the atheists to prove there is no God . If we use logic that would be the proof. Do you believe a woman turned into salt? It’s in the Bible when we know scientifically that is impossible

 

What they don't tell you...is that all those Virgins are old men who were to ugly to get laid.

 

There should be a legal age limit for religions just like there is for other harmful mind impairing substances like alcohol and marijuana.

No child under 18 should be exposed to religion.

 

who told you that foolishness? If you claim to be an athesit you believe there is no god, all laughable semantic contortions notwithstanding, therefore you are liable to prove your position, just like anyone else with a position based in faith.

Neoatheists do not use logic to determine they are atheists, they use faith and pretend its logic.

at least until the age of reason since the atheist religions are based in faith precisely the same as the theists religions.

 

Quite right, that's how religion is propagated, by indoctrinating children.

 

God is pure act. God is the actualisation of all potency and therefore God cannot be a pink unicorn.

Nowhere has it ever been stated that God is "an invisible man in the sky" and believing in God is not the suspension of logic.

 

Statism is much worse.

 

I agree and accodingly we should shut down all public schools today!

 

Agnostics don’t believe there is any proof of a god. They are ambivalent. They give it no thought till there is.

 

I have a question ~ will right wingers ever win a debate against the more patriotic sort on this forum? Does religion have any possible role in why the far right loses all these debates?

 

It’s yours that are foolish. Otherwise, everyone wastes their time proving unicorns and smart republicans don’t exists. The onus is to prove existence, not the other way around.