new

pastoredsmith:
There is nothing in atheism except denial. Denial, when it comes to refuting the truth about God, is a religion. You worship your own logic. And, my congregation is doing well. Perhaps you should join us. God will change your miserable, imaginary life into one of purpose.

bumsmcgee:
They are not that different than you. They just add one more God they don’t believe in to the list you yourself use. Your threats are just your own paranoid revenge fantasy. You can’t handle being disagreed with.

pastoredsmith:
You don't know me, yet you continue your fake insults. Typical of an atheist who knows he can't win the argument using his own logic. Don't know who said it, but they are right...... "
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." Had to be an atheist that said that.

bumsmcgee:
Yeah, it’s always the atheists people like you give the blame to. Anyway what I said is true. I just disbelieve one more God than you do.

pastoredsmith:
"people like you give blame to..." No, that is not true. "Blame" is not "given" it comes from actions. FFRF, the bullies you represent, are the people who are trying to stifle all voices but those who line up with them. It is atheists who want to rewrite textbooks and omit the obvious Christian influence on the formation of the USA and all the good that is being done. I've never seen an atheist hospital nor an atheist food pantry. How about an atheist version of the Salvation Army that feeds and clothes the needy. None exist. The absence of God in a life is equal to the absence of true, genuine love; for only in God can that kind of love be found. I don't hate you, although you certainly have insinuated the opposite of that here. To tell the truth is not to hate, it is to set the record straight. I pray you find your way home from your atheism before it is too late for you.

bumsmcgee:
You're just reinforcing my point. Atheism is an opinion and that's all it is. We don't form clubs and organizations, except in cases where religion oversteps its boundaries. And I know of Christians who side with groups like the FFRF on occasion because your side DOES occasionally champion political causes they have no business being involved with. If no one is there to keep your side in line, you'll get away with murder.

pastoredsmith:
Wrong. Your point is that atheists think they can command the government. You think that by sending a threatening letter to a school, you can prevent a Christian teacher from laying a Bible on her desk. You think that you can silence Christians in the public arena, but you will never accomplish that. You think that you have authority over Christians in matters of free speech, but you don't. And, it is NOT atheists job to "Keep your side in line." You are not the gods you claim to disbelieve. And, I can always tell when an atheist has lost an argument. The slander comes forth. Murder? You don't believe in the 10 Commandments, if you truly don't believe in God, then you don't believe in the Bible. So, it is not I who commits that which I believe is wrong.

bumsmcgee:
You are WRONG

Atheists have no desire to command or control the government. The point is, they strongly desire that faith-minded people like YOU don't either. You are convinced you have the TRUTH but all you have is faith, and many reasonable people disagree with the heavy-handed things you try to hammer through. People like you believe abortion is murder when it is NOT, not by the definition of the dictionary nor the definition of the law. If you had your way, people would be thrown in jail for not worshipping your holy book and homosexuals would be jailed or worse. We have the right and the desire to be protected from people like you.

pastoredsmith:
No, I am RIGHT. Atheists DO want to control and command the government. Atheists ARE trying to silence Christians. I notice that you don't focus your efforts on Muslims. Only Christians. And, I have the truth....faith in the truth is easy. All you have is faith in the vein babblings of man's wild imagination. You have no basis for morality, as you think one thing and the next guy something, so there is no base line to build on....like a building with no foundation. And, you add much to what I am as opposed to the monster you make me out to be. I believe in freedom for all; including atheists, homosexuals and the like. No, I never advocated anyone be thrown in jail for their beliefs. And, the "protection" you seek from "people like you" is exactly my point. You don't want protection any more than gays "only wanted to get married." you want to fundamentally change society to jail "people like me" who dare express the truth. All this and you still hide behind a "handle." You are a coward, stenching the world from behind your private little curtain. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..." he is only a babbling atheist. If you wish to discuss, fine, But, stop the insults. I'll talk with you, but you won't slander me further.

bumsmcgee:
We have seen pastors calling for the execution of gay people. For that reason and that reason alone we need to be protected from the likes of you. You want your faith-based beliefs to be laws. You want a woman's right to choose to be taken away, and this is strictly based on your faith. You are RELIGION, we should have the right to say NO to you and we need to be protected from you.

pastoredsmith:
You have seen confused individuals who call themselves "pastors" calling for execution because someone is gay. Why do you care anyway? Are you gay? A woman's right to choose? What about the BABY's rights? After all, you say you are a person of science who hides behind that mask, right? So, if a whale fetus is a baby whale, what makes you think a fetus is not a human baby? From conception? You are no scientist. You are a hypocrite. And, I am NOT "religion." Religion does kill. Ask any Muslim who'd love to chop off your head because you are an atheist. People are very much imperfect; even and maybe especially some who call themselves "Christians." Can you testify to the good moral character of all atheists? No, you can't. No, you don't need protection from me. That's not what you seek. You seek silence of Christians; the very people who are doing good in this culture. Silence the hospitals and food pantry's and the clothing banks and all the good things that we (I) am involved with. You have lumped us in with radical religion because there is a fringe who are idiots, such as the "church" in Topeka that boycotts military funerals. These people are not Christians and hide behind the wall of lies they put up that is painted to look Christian. Sir, you need protection from someone, I'll agree. That someone is yourself. Your own twisted mind causes you to conjure up lies about me because you *think* I'm guilty of them. You couldn't be more wrong.

bumsmcgee:
What do you mean, "why do you care anyway?" Some religious lunatic decides that all gay people should be put to death, and wants to see the government enact such craziness? There are stats that say 1 in 10 people are LGBT. I care VERY MUCH that a guy calling himself a Christian Pastor would like to have the power to basically call for genocide. And this is something you defend?

The fact you're calling a fetus/zygote/embryo a "baby" tells me you're not being entirely reasonable. Of course I don't see abortion as something that is good. The thing is, most of the women put in that agonizing position don't either. But you don't look at individual situations AT ALL. You just say it's murder (it's not) and that's that. And once again, you want the government to enforce it. Yet another very good reason why the FFRF exists and why we have the right to be protected from people like you.

If the two examples above are the "good moral character" you insist Christians have, and criticize atheists for not having, I think can I safely rest my case. People like you scare the living daylights out of me.

Rayburne Winsor: First of all, you must distinguish between operational or experimental science, which can be observed, tested and repeated in a laboratory, from historical or Origins science which cannot. Even evolutionists admit hat. Neither biblical creation nor "goo-to-you, molecules to man" evolution can be proven. The Tree of life (GTE or Thesis of Common Ancestry) is just an unproven hypothesis at best. What evolutionists conveniently do is extrapolate "change in gene frequency over time" or "descent with modification" and rapid speciation (which creationists have always believed to be compatible with biblical creation) as evidence for vertical (primitive to complex) change that increases the genetic information content in the genome. It is not. All alleged "proofs" of "evolution in action" today do not show that functional new information is added to genes; rather, they involve sorting and/or loss of genetic information. Let us examine the fossil record. After, 150 years after Darwin and alleged millions of years of gradual evolution-by-creeps [too slow to see], evolution-by-peaks [too fast to see] and evolution-by-freaks (genetic mutations still harmful-produces nothing new by way of transmutations: snails remain snails, clams clams, trilobites trilobites, jellyfish jellyfish, birds birds, fish fish, apes apes, man man) , we have only a few highly disputed intermediate or so-called transitional fossils that could cover a billiard table and are highly disputed even among evolutionists themselves.

What scientists find in the fossil record are completely formed and intact fossils of all life-forms without a hint of evolutionary ancestors or "transitional" fossils in the geological strata beneath them (evidence for biblical creation). And what do we have in the so-called hierarchy of human evolutionary ancestors that you see neatly and orderly arranged in some museum? You have nothing more than illustrations and drawings like you see in textbooks, or plaster of Paris reconstructions of candidates (supposedly intermediate or transitional) out of the wild imagination of some artist paid to tell the evolutionary story? All you are seeing in museums are STORIES ABOUT EVIDENCE, not actual material evidence of bones and in-between stages of evolutionary development. Detailed analysis of a number of various "ape-man" candidates shows that they are either fully ape-like or fully human, not transitional or even mosaic. Australopithecines were not ancestral to modern man, and Lucy was a knuckle-walker . Homo habilis is a "taxonomic wastebin". Homo erectus was a variety of Homo sapiens (Humans), with overlapping cranial capacity and morphology and even seafaring ability. Homo erectus, including Java Man, was just a post-Babel variety of Homo sapiens (modern man), and had seafaring ability. Some of the ape-man candidates are based on very fragmentary remains such as Ardipithecus and Orrorin. Artists are told to make their drawings look "more transitional"; there is plenty of leeway since skin, hair, lips and noses are not fossilized.

David Murray: abiogenesis is not evolution, open a grade school level science book as you are not smarter than a fifth grader. Then learn how to use google
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

Rayburne Winsor This is not science; it is science fiction. You have nothing more than illustrations and drawings like you see in textbooks, or plaster of Paris reconstructions of candidates (supposedly intermediate or transitional) out of the wild imagination of some artist paid to tell the evolutionary story? All you are seeing in museums are STORIES ABOUT EVIDENCE, not actual material evidence of bones and in-between stages of evolutionary development. Detailed analysis of a number of various "ape-man" candidates shows that they are either fully ape-like or fully human, not transitional or even mosaic. Australopithecines were not ancestral to modern man, and Lucy was a knuckle-walker . Homo habilis is a "taxonomic wastebin". Homo erectus was a variety of Homo sapiens (Humans), with overlapping cranial capacity and morphology and even seafaring ability. Homo erectus, including Java Man, was just a post-Babel variety of Homo sapiens (modern man), and had seafaring ability. Some of the ape-man candidates are based on very fragmentary remains such as Ardipithecus and Orrorin. Artists are told to make their drawings look "more transitional"; there is plenty of leeway since skin, hair, lips and noses are not fossilized.

(...)

Rayburne Winsor: I have heard the same old crap during the last 40 years of discussing this topic with atheists, science students and skeptics. Most of which is highly speculative in nature and not surprisingly based on evolutionary assumptions and predictions (nothing ew). But what real evidence, if any, do they have. As I said, a few supposedly “transitional” fossils that even evolutionists highly dispute among themselves.
Charles Oxnard, formerly professor of Anatomy and biological Sciences at the University of Southern California and Professor of Human Anatomy and Human Biology , University of Western Australia, showed that the big toe of the famous “Lucy” stuck out as in chimpanzees.

Also, Dr. Fred Spoor, Professor of Evolutionary Anatomy at University College London, UK , and joint editor of the Journal of Human Evolution , performed CAT scans of australopithecine inner ear canals , the organs of posture and balance. This showed that they did not walk habitually upright (See Spoor, F, Wood, B., and Zonneveld, F., Implications of early hominid morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Nature 369 (6482):645-648, 1994). This is all contrary to Dawkins’ claim that Lucy “walked upright on her hind legs...on two feet which were pretty much like ours although its brain was the size of a chimpanzee. Indeed, evidence now suggests that Lucy had wrist-locking abilities “classic for knuckle walkers” which is hardly consistent with Dawkins claim that ucy walked upright like we do (Stokstad, E., Hominid ancestors may have knuckle walked, Science 287 (5461) :2131, 2000, citing the first author of Richmond, B. G. and Strait, D.S. , Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle walking ancestor , Nature 404 (6776):382, 2000). Museums once featured Australopithecus africanus as an ancestor to humans---A. Africanus includes “Mrs Ples” (now thought to be small “Mrs Ples”) and the Taung child (Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, p.189-193) . Donald Johanson , the discoverer of “Lucy” , places Australopithecus africanus in a side-branch not leading to man (Johanson, D. C. and White T.D. , A Systematic Assessment of Early African Hominids , Science 203:321-330, 1979) and many museums have now demoted this once certain human ancestor to a non-ancestor.

Time magazine reported on a specimen called Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, dated between 5.6 and 5.8 million years old. Time claimed that this new specimen was already walking upright , at (what they claim was ) the dawn of evolution. But how clear is this really> Time reports the opinion of the discoverer of “Lucy”, Donald Johanson : “Beyond that, he’s dubious about categorizing the 5.2 million year old toe bone (Ardipithecus) with the rest of the fossils : not only is it separated in time by several hundred thousand years, but it was also found some 10 miles from the rest (Lemonick, M.D. and Dorfman, A., One Giant Step for Mankind, Time magazine cover story, 23 July 2001). Note that this toe was the major “evidence” for uprightness, yet, at being found 10 miles away , it boggles the mind how it could be regarded as part of the same specimen. As one researcher put it regarding the fossils and human evolution, “Fossils are fickle. Bones will sing any song you want to hear” ( Shreeve, J., Argument over a woman, Discover 11 (8):58, 1990).

When the various fossils are analyzed in depth, they turn out not to be transitional or even mosaic. That is my last comment. I don't really care what you come back with. You believe what you want. You seem to enjoy calling me dishonest and a liar, but David the truth is you would not know the truth if it was standing right in front of you. I will leave it to the readers to decide who is honest and truthful based on real evidence and scientific research, for which I gave clear references, mostly from evolutionary journals and publications, not straw dummy arguments without evidence to support it. Of course, I know you will deny that too as dishonest and a lie. Right?
Honestly, I don't feel sorry for guys like you who are brainwashed by the fairy tale for grown-ups (Evolution) but the truth is, as both you and I know, you do not want to know the truth, just promote your evolutionary faith that is nothing more than a philosophical justification for not wanting to believe unbelief in a Creator/God. It is not rocket science, David, as I hope and pray you find out before you exit this life on earth (and you will).

For example, Pakicetus (whale from Pakistan) was first drawn as an aquatic creature based on a few skull bones and teeth (Gingerich, P.D., et al., Science 220 (4595): 403-406, 22 April 1983). Its discoverer Philip Gingerich proclaimed it to be perfectly intermediate in time and in its morphology, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales (Gingerich , P.D., J. Geology. Educ 31:140-144, 1983. Since a few scraps of bone were interpreted in an evolutionary framework, it is not surprising that they were thought to be a “missing link”.

However, when the rest of the skeleton was found, it was realized to be a fast-running land creature (then drawn by the same artist as the diagram in Dawkins book (see Thewissen, J. G. M., et al., Skeletons of terrestial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls, Nature 413: 277-281, 20 Sept. 2001; and Pakicetus...eight years on. Illustration: Carl Buell www.neoucom.edu/Depts.Anat/Pakicetid.html ).

This is hardly the only example of evolutionists misleading the public , exaggerating the evidence from a few scraps of bone. The moral of the story, as one evolutionist put it, is:”Fossils are fickle. Bones will sing any song you want to hear (Shreeve, J. Argument over a woman, Discover 11 (8):58, 1990 (in reference to human evolution).