i am a born again, evangelical christian

[Tony]

I just disagree is all. I would have said the same thing to a Chrisitan who said that such and such will burn. As human beings are finite and in the end only God utlimatly knows the eternal fate of all people.

disagreeing perfectly ok, this troll guy is just causing trouble

 

[Tony]

if you just want to stick on simple answers, and are actually not interested in a indepth research and seek of a deeper understanding, why should i do the work for you ?

please dont then

 

[AntiKarateKid]

i wont do the work, since that is not a answer, i will be able to give in a few minutes. but you can google, and find a extensive, indepth answer. if you are not interested to do it, my time is not worth to be spend on that answer either. sorry.

You are a slippery one! Any christian reponse out there has an Islamic refutation to it. You get it?

Stop dancing around my challenge. You have no answer. I specifically asked this one because ANY christian response to this is convoluted in such a way that it would make far more sense if you guys admitted to being polytheistic.

I'll wait till you skim another article on answering Islam. :rollseyes

 

[Tony]

I am still waiting for the proof that Jesus is son of God lol

 

[AntiKarateKid]

I am still waiting for the proof that Jesus is son of God lol

Let him answer my question first because it is harder to copy and paste for mine.

 

[Tony]

Let him answer my question first because it is harder to copy and paste for mine.

haha, dont worry he will, he cant answer mine, but no doubt he will hide behind some wall of text plaguerised from some right wing website

 

[Hyuio]

i see, just ignoring the tuff part....

No. just most of the BS.
You want tough (that is how it is spelt) then how about showing that christian god is the only god that exists, Jesus existed, that the gospels actually agree on everything, that the flood was real, that Adam and Eve existed, that Moses really spoke to a burning bush, that the exodus really happened, that evoultion is false, that cosmoslogy is false, that planetary formation is false

thats complete nonsense. Abiogenesis is not possible, and nobody has proven contrary. Atheists are becoming desperate and are now offering $1 million for an explanation that "corresponds to empirical biochemical and thermodynamic reality, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal

Is the Chemical Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) a Realistic Scenario?
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

Yawn, apologetic site. I see no science. Miller-Urey is a peer reviewed scientific paper. Your pathetic apolgist site is full of normal creotard nonsense that has be debunked and shown for the BS that it is. Take a look at a real site devoted to real science.
http://www.talkorigins.org/

"We can't explain therefore godunnit"

that actually is a standard , boring, atheist argument.

Scientists and theists are not the only ones who use "gaps" arguments. In fact, many atheists use gaps arguments to argue against the existence of God.For example, atheists complain that a loving God would never allow evil in His creation. However, this argument is based on a gap in atheists' understanding of the main purpose of the universe

Oh really?
Q:How was the universe created
Atheist answer: We don't know, but there are some really interesting hypothesis on the matter. We shall experiemnt and test then
Fundie Theist answer: Godunnit

Q: How did life start on earth?
Atheist answer: We don't really know, but we experiment and find that under early panetary conditions amino acids form.
Fundie Theist answer: Godunnit

Q: HOw did humans get here?
Atheist: this we do know as we have evolution for this. Look at all these papers that show evolution, the fossil records, genetics and how evolution is happening even as we speak. Look, you can even observe it in the laboratory
Fundie theist answer: Godunnit

See, an atheist will amit we don't know because we don't? Your instant answer is Godunnit. your argument is flawed and falls into EPIC FAIL.

In another example, atheists cannot imagine how God can exist as a non-created being. However, the gap is filled by throwing out the assumption that time has always existed. We are so used to cause and effect that we can't imagine an existence without it.

I don't assume time and space has always existed, something you can't do with your god. Even so if your flawed argument is vaguly correct, it still doesn't prove your god. Could be the FSM for all you know.

Many skeptics believe that all arguments for the existence of God fall into the God of the gaps variety. According to this premise, one would expect these arguments to become fewer in number as scientists make more discoveries and learn more about our world. In reality, evidence continues to accumulate suggesting that the universe was designed by an intelligent agent. The evidence suggesting that the universe and its physical laws were designed continues to accumulate at a rapid rate.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/god_of_the_gaps.html

;D;D;D
More apologetic BS. ID has been debunked on so many levels. Reality says that evidence shows that the universe is less designed, not more. Please site one, just one scientifically peer reviewed paper that agress with ID. Seriously have a look at Talkorigins,

Long chain molecules are found in nebulae, known as Giant Molecular Clouds. They are a part of a natural process in the universe from dying stars. This gives the hypothesis that the begins of life can begin out in space rather than having to form on a planetary surface.
As for the manufacture of Nylon you do know that a byproduct of making nylon is water?

why should i, if you have not either ? show me where i am wrong with my presented facts !! and, answer to all presented points..... and not just the easy ones...

You cite apologist sites as your sources, and you want me to take your arguments seriously. You haven't presented any facts, just assumptions because like most faith blind theists your fantasy book has given you answers and you then use bad science, lies and just plain ignoring the evidence to back up your claims. You examine the evidence and draw up a conclusion on those facts, not the other way around which you are.