Why atheists cuss during debates

Share this page!

The main reason atheists get mad during a debate about evolution is because of their frustrations when we make a point they cannot refute, and it makes them face the reality that what they believe is really a lie. Proof? Out of all the claims made about evolution from a single cell to all that we see, less then 1% is actually observable. And the reason for this is time constraints. To observe the 99%, one would have to have a time machine.

The *claimed* Tree of Life is nothing more than an interpretation of the evidence. There is *zero* observation because of time constraints. That makes the drawing more of an opinion than fact. And because on evolutionists are allowed to:

1) Dig up the evidence.
2) Interpret the evidence.
3) Peer review the evidence.
4) Make any conclusion concerning the evidence.

It makes the evidence not only unobserved due to time constraints, but extremely bias considering that those who already believe that it’s a true proven fact are the only ones allowed to do any work concerning the theory

And the proof that this goes well beyond science, is that atheists use it to support their worldviews and agendas, which makes the theory personal, which ensures there will *always be bias* concerning it. The only way one can approach either idea (creation or evolution) from a non-biased stand point is to:

1) Remove the theist from creation.
2) Remove the atheist from evolution.

In this way the evidence for both ideas stand on it’s own, and can be tested on it’s merits alone which 100% supports what the scientific method is all about. The question is: Who would be willing to do this, and would both sides accept the conclusions?

As one atheist said, that I brought this up to: You ask the impossible. No one can become that neutral to the subject, no one… Was he saying this because it’s true, or because he’s unwilling to give up his biases because he knows the outcome would not be in his favor?

Now do I say that because I am bias towards what I believe? Nope. After 25 years of debating atheists on the subject of C vs. E, one thing I have found is that if you are truly searching for truth. You have to consider everything. And be willing to step back from you belief and say: Prove what you claim, and I’ll convert right here right now. And I have done this on several occasions much to the surprise of my debate opponents who then say: Even if I did prove it you’d still reject it.

To which I respond: Then prove it and let’s see. Go get as many people as you need to do this and return and let’s see who’s really bias. And they never do. They either leave, call me names etc…. But the challenge is never ever met. That is because the challenge is a put up or shut up type challenge. And because people are not really looking for truth from either side to any degree, because they have made their belief personal. They cannot accept being wrong.

The perfect example is this episode of friends where Ross and Pheobe have an argument over the subject of evolution. And Ross cannot accept that Pheobe has a different opinion and that he might be wrong.

Click image to watch this short video

Share this page!

 

 

 

 

 

 

FaceBook Feed
Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

... See MoreSee Less

Thousands not Billions: How Old is the Earth?

For our friends and supporters near St. Louis, the CUS Society of Creation is hosting its 7th annual conference 14 and 15 June. 

http://www.societyofcreation.org/conferences.php

Several CRS members are speaking, and we’d love to have you there.

Thousands not Billions: How Old is the Earth?

For our friends and supporters near St. Louis, the CUS Society of Creation is hosting its 7th annual conference 14 and 15 June.

http://www.societyofcreation.org/conferences.php

Several CRS members are speaking, and we’d love to have you there.
... See MoreSee Less

This is something you don't see everyday. 2 dolphins and 2 whales playing together. ~ Issac

https://facebook.com/SciencePhileOfficial/videos/…
... See MoreSee Less

The Living Quarters on the ark are practical but comfortable.

The Living Quarters on the ark are practical but comfortable. ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

i have driven by a cattle farm...i bet that place stunk bad lol

Just remember, this is all artistic license...

Does everyone see the irony in the ark flooding? Wasn’t it suppose to survive the great flood? Do you not know unless you have flood insurance, you are not covered. Flooding is an “act of God”. Ask Louisiana residents how they faired after the flood. How about Puerto Rico? Maybe Missouri or even your neighbor, WV. Did you donate money to help those flood victims? Were the dinosaurs ok???

I'm sorry but I just don't think the ark was that comfortable....In fact I doubt that Noah's home was that comfortable.

They were probably better and more comfortable than my quarters on board the USS Abraham Lincoln! 😂

I doubt it.

It doesn’t seem they would’ve been that comfortable.

View more comments

Video image

May we be as bold as this young lady to speak up at our city council meetings: https://youtu.be/oQ8eob45f1I ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Indeed such a strong faith!

I also would not be here Miriam!

love her.

Ray Comfort has mental retardation ... See MoreSee Less

n case you did not know this. ~ Issac

n case you did not know this. ~ IssacIn case you did not know this. ~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less

Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until its rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/living-fossils.html
The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australias earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or little mountain monkey - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina.
Reference: http://www.create.unsw.edu.au/news/2008-03-25_monito.html
The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”
reference: http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/scientists-uncover-two-new-species-of-elusive-south-american-marsupial/

Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until it's rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/…
"The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australia's earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or "little mountain monkey" - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina."
Reference: http://create.unsw.edu.au/news/…
"The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”"
reference: http://eartharchives.org/articles/…
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Your picture makes it seem like the two species shown are found 55 Ma apart even though they are both modern species. Rather, it was the genus Djarthia (whose exact taxonomic position is uncertain) that occurs in the Paleocene, as noted in the PLOS paper you provided. This graphic is either a misunderstanding or diliberate misrepresentation of the references cited. May I ask what formal training in paleontology the admin of this page has had?

We didn't claim the skulls were from a 55 million year old fossil, it is the references that claim Monito del Monte is regarded as a living fossil and thought to exist: 55 million years ago.

Colby, please stop spamming the contrasts. There is no need to post the same link multiple times, Thank you.

I was just doing a one shot on each post. I didnt even think anyone even looked at this page anymore. I apologize.

Looks like the Colbinator deleted his post 😭

View more comments