HugATree

Heh. I'm not quite sure I understand you. I explained why it's rational for Christians wanting to be with their loved ones in Heaven. Where I'm confused is when you made the assumption that I said it's wrong for an atheist wanting their loved one to be an atheist? And I explained why someone might not want their loved ones mental health jeopardized, two opposites of the same issue; respecting ones beliefs. Why is it confusing? Your original question was about wanting someone to believe and talk to invisible beings. Now the reversal of the question is asked and you find it confusing? Because you want them to be like you, or because you respect them?

Thanks for demonstrating the hypocrisy of your belief system, you're right it doesn't take a genius just a poor judge.

So there's something "wrong" about caring about people whom you loving, and therefore caring about their salvation? If someone believes when they die some are going to Heaven, and some are going to Hell - and they want the person they love to be in Heaven with them - that's wrong? In that case whats wrong with caring for someones mental health who talks to invisible beings, and wanting this person they love to be rational?

Not everyone finds imaginary friends appealing.

Great way of showing science doesn't know anything by showing your own ignorance, good job. Why waste your time making a worthless post that has completely no point?

You're saying if no one sees it, it doesn't happen? No, I'm saying somebody had to be there to make it happen, the somebody being God. He has to make the stuff happen. Or else it would just be nothingness forever. Something had to make it. Right.. So someone made crystals form, someone made mountains form (ignore plate tectonics, thats just a theory); all because you say so, and then you invent infinite nothingness to base this argument on. He was talking about the matter/energy for the Big Bang, not mountains :| He was talking about someone had to make the "stuff happen", mountains are no different.

We killed him? Missionaries used that lie to trick the Panare Natives into believeing. Hard to swallow too.

You're saying if no one sees it, it doesn't happen? No, I'm saying somebody had to be there to make it happen, the somebody being God. He has to make the stuff happen. Or else it would just be nothingness forever. Something had to make it. Right.. So someone made crystals form, someone made mountains form (ignore plate tectonics, thats just a theory); all because you say so, and then you invent infinite nothingness to base this argument on.

Biological evolution simply does not deal with how things like the universe formed, never did and never will; just like it doesn't explain gravity or how the sun works. There are still issues research and experiments help figure out but you're lumping unrelated issues into the wrong fields of science.

You are better then me on the evolution topic, but if you don't know how it started then whats the point in explaining how it continued? Because how it started doesn't affect the theory, the theory explains what has been observed and tested up to the present time, it explains what is known; where the universe came from isn't covered in biology.

Can you just give me your answers to the questions? I would like to know what evolutionists think of the issue, but everytime I ask they push me away and change the topic. For how the universe started, I don't know and don't really think about it. For how life started, abiogenesis, but whether there was an intelligence involved I don't know. Well you copied everything, even the part that makes it clear the questions are about evolution.

Good job, thanks for demonstrating how to make a useless argument. What have your 'arguments' resulted in? NOTHING. ;) Unless you haven't noticed, most replies here have tried to discuss religion; then there are people who come here and use the opportunity to try and sell their religion, their replies can't even be taken seriously. What did your post achieve? I mean other than another waste of bandwidth with the same repeated fallacious crap?

Great logic, where does the Christian Evolutionists go? Do you even have a clue what you're talking about?

Good job, thanks for demonstrating how to make a useless argument.

Geohood, good for you; but this topic is about intelligently discussing religion, not "selling" it with fallacies.

You're saying if no one sees it, it doesn't happen? The same reason there is cars, planes and space shuttles; people did it. In the sense of you being the most important thing in your world. Not really much other options. Because some people would feel like it. Good for him.

That you wouldn't know evolution if it bit you? Or you quote creationists who wouldn't know it either? I pointed out 6 or so of the questions had nothing to do with evolution, not that they couldn't be answered. Science offers testable explanations, still nothing on the invisible man though.

Please look up what science is, just because someone believes something does not make it science. Show me this proof it is fictional, and I will listen. The evidence contradicts the creation story, mankind has been around alot long than 6000 yrs.

I'll answer what I can. Anyway I thought alot of Creationists reject Kent Hovind because even he fails to grasp just what evolution is. Nothing to do with evolution. Nothing to do with evolution. Nothing to do with evolution. Its not; still nothing to do with evolution. Nothing to do with evolution. Nothing to do with evolution. Self-replicating polymers? Nothing, single cells don't use sexual reproduction. Conjugation isn't technically sexual reproduction. With the abundance of food it actually increases the survival of the species. Because its genetic code, if the genetic code changes don't you think so will the organism. When did Chinese become a new and improved English? Yea, and the sun rising proves it knows when people need to go to work. Mutation. No different then anything other animal/plant. All life is intermediate.

Sorry, science isn't just what someone believes. Look up the definition before attacking it, both explanations isn't science.

The earth apparently doesn't move either.

Isaiah translates to circle. When did science ever say it was flat? Still wrong, its called gravity. When did science ever say it was an animal? Its your fictional creation story calling it a "creation".

So you've always existed? I know what its like not to exist, and so does alot of other people.

I get it, but I'm not decieving myself into thinking I have absolute truth. I understand truth has yet to be fully discovered; I'm simply choosing a more reliable method. Then why bring up science? Sounds like you're now critizing science for not doing what you want it to do.