Originally posted by DeepThought
No true Scotsman would disagree with you.

The Scottish sell outs can rot in an English hell! 😛

Originally posted by whodey
Well of course we are constructed with amino acids. No one is denying that. The question is, how?

You have no answer.

My having no answer doesn't make a random answer by someone else more likely, nor does it make a fairy tale more likely, nor does it make any answer whatsoever more likely.
Here is some advice to theists with regards to logic: before making any statement supporting your religion, ask yourself whether or not you would accept the same statement in support of another religion, or an known invented religion. If your argument works just as well for the spaghetti monster as it does for your god, then consider not making it.

In reality however I do have an answer as to how life got here, you just didn't bother to ask.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In reality however I do have an answer as to how life got here, you just didn't bother to ask.[/b]

Which is?

Darwin done it?

Originally posted by 667joe
It is safe to say that almost all, (if not all) humans lie at one time or another. In other words, lying is very common. That being said, which is more likely, Jesus walked on water or someone told a lie? Jesus was born of a virgin, or some one lied? God spoke as a burning bush, or some one lied? Unless you are lying to yourself, you would have to admit that it is much more likely that the above examples are lies than actual events.

No. Lies may be common now, but that's more a comment on our times than anything else. At the times of these events, lying was not considered "harmless" and people took great pains to avoid it. A man's word actually meant something then. Calling someone a liar could get you killed. Reputation was important then, as it was directly tied to your ability to keep a job and feed yourself. If you became a social pariah for lying, you had no choice but to move to somewhere else where they did not know you, and you hoped people would not find out about your past.

Originally posted by whodey
What is more likely? Did man simply evolove from amino acids to produce life devoid of intelligent intervention, even though scientists have never observed this happening in nature nor can they duplicate it in a lab?

What is more likely, the Bible is a book of lies or there is something there that should be shown respect since pretty much al world religio ...[text shortened]... t to it as a book of truth and the vast majority of people think it is the inspired word of God?

Do you have an answer to these profound questions? Tell me, what is the likelihood of amino acids combining to form (human) life and what is the likelihood of God existing?

You are using this as some sort of argument, so I assume you have an answer, right?

Tell me, please.

Originally posted by whodey
Well of course we are constructed with amino acids. No one is denying that. The question is, how?

You have no answer.

Horowitz said something about it in 1945😵

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/an-evolutionary-perspective-on-amino-acids-14568445

Originally posted by 667joe
It is safe to say that almost all, (if not all) humans lie at one time or another. In other words, lying is very common. That being said, which is more likely, Jesus walked on water or someone told a lie? Jesus was born of a virgin, or some one lied? God spoke as a burning bush, or some one lied? Unless you are lying to yourself, you would have to admit that it is much more likely that the above examples are lies than actual events.

Or that they were never meant to be taken literally. The myths were meant to convey greater truths, as much of literature does. The damage came from people who wanted to literalize the stories, while forgetting the messages conveyed.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No. Lies may be common now, but that's more a comment on our times than anything else. At the times of these events, lying was not considered "harmless" and people took great pains to avoid it. A man's word actually meant something then. Calling someone a liar could get you killed. Reputation was important then, as it was directly tied to your a ...[text shortened]... where else where they did not know you, and you hoped people would not find out about your past.

Do you have any evidence for such an extraordinary claim?

Also, if I present you with a list of other writings from the exact same period, are you going to accept that they are unlikely to contain lies? Or will you suddenly change your stance when your favorite religion is not the main subject?

What is your view of Gnostic writing?

Did the importance of reputation still hold sway by the time of Mohammed?