Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

[Rumraket]

Wrong premise... Life doesn't come from atoms....it comes from life

And all life is made of cells, which are made of atoms.

There is no wrong premise. The law of biogenesis is based on the observation that all life is made of cells which come about through cell division. And all cells are made of atoms. So all life must be made of atoms.

 

[Rumraket]

Again from life... how life reproduces itself mixing that argument is your wrong premise.

Not stupid... but wrong.

No it's not wrong at all.

Basic fact confirmed by observation with not a single observation that contradicts it:
1. Life comes from life.
- Therefore a "law" of biogenesis.

Basic fact confirmed by observation with not a single observation that contradicts it:
2. Life is made of cells.
- Therefore a "law" of cellular life.

Basic fact confirmed by observation with not a single observation that contradicts it:
3. Cells are made of atoms.
- Therefore a "law" of atomic cellular life.

These are all undeniable observational facts. If you accept #1 then 2 and 3 automatically follow, because they're based on the same observation. There is no way out. You cannot just ignore what you observe. That is called the fallacy of exclusion in logic.

 

[Rumraket]

Your mixing how life reproduces with the observational fact life from life

That's the same thing. Reproduction IS the fact that life comes from life.

 

[Rumraket]

Life uses atoms and molecules... That is observed.

Life IS atoms and molecules = that is observed.

Atoms and molecules coming to life = not observed.

God creating life = not observed.

You are shoehorning your faith in the premises.

No, I work entirely with observed facts.

It is a fact that all life is made of cells, and all cells are made of atoms, and cells come from cell division. That's all I've been saying. All of these things are observed facts.

 

[Rumraket]

The only time you observe molecules coming to life... is when the preexisting condition of life is there.

Life from life

And since all life is made of cells which are made of atoms, the only way life can come about is from other cells which are also made of atoms.

I'm only taking observed facts here. This is where your logic takes you.

 

[Rumraket]

Thank you.

I'm glad you agree with me. All life is made of cells made of atoms, and only come about through cell division.

 

[Rumraket]

Yes please show them this thread.

 

[Rumraket]

I show them evolution. I show them atheism. Islam. All from the same pot.

Then I compare to bible.

In today's society one has to know what to expect.

Good. Remember to give them links to this discussion. Let them see it in action. I will show this to anyone I know.

 

[Rumraket]

I show them how Islam is actually atheism... atheism is Islam. ..

Global warming fraud... the concept that many windmills will avert Armageddon is particularly hilarious.

Flat earth... instead of a globe. Imagine the surprises when, through a telescope, a ship reappears from behind the hill of water.

Homosexuality is scientifically unsound. Science clearly proves feces on your penis is bad.

......etc etc

That's all very nice, but just remember to show this forum and this discussion to the kids you teach. You wouldn't want to engage in censorship and stifle their academic freedom, right?

Let's show them both sides and let them choose for themselves. Teach the controversy!

 

[Rumraket]

Including the fact that atheists believe molecules and atoms spontaneusly become living organisms. Angiogenesis.

Yes your thread is useful

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiogenesis

"Angiogenesis is the physiological process through which new blood vessels form from pre-existing vessels." :lol:

 

[Rumraket]

Yes teach controversy ..... of course. ... evolution and creation. Atheism and theism.

I teach evolution so the kids don't run out saying ... oh evolution and atheists believe we come from monkeys.

I teach that evolution suggests we come from common ancestors to which the only evidence is the little line drawn between the two.

Okay. But if you teach that the only evidence for common descent is a drawn line, then you are factually incorrect.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Introduction

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

 

[Rumraket]

Then I show that card give birth to cats... and elephants to elephants....

I teach evolution suggests certain animals ran back to the water... the evidence being similar bones...then I teach that a common designer shows similar bones.

Again no evidence for evolution... just teaching the theory.

Here is a lecture given by professor Jerry Coyne at Harvard Museum of Natural History:

 

[Rumraket]

I also show people like Bill Nye who think it's science to say we descended from aliens.

Can you give a link to this? It sounds funny, but I suspect you're not correctly representing what Bill Nye has said.

 

[Rumraket]

Yes it is.

P.s. I don't watch your videos and anything longer then a paragraph I probably don't read from you.

I know, that is okay with me. Just make sure you show it to the kids you teach. Thank you.

 

[Rumraket]

Lord no. I keep it short.

That atheist blathering is already hell

So you're not going to expose them to alternative viewpoints? Are you afraid they don't find your arguments convincing?

 

[Rumraket]

Evolution.... the belief we come from non humans.

Evidence..... never been seen

Therefore evolution is faith.

That's why it's taught in religious class

But you perfectly described creationism. No evidence, taken on faith, and only taught in religion class. In science class we teach evolution.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Then I show that card give birth to cats... and elephants to elephants....

I teach evolution suggests certain animals ran back to the water... the evidence being similar bones...then I teach that a common designer shows similar bones.

Again no evidence for evolution... just teaching the theory.

Then I show that card give birth to cats... and elephants to elephants....

I teach evolution suggests certain animals ran back to the water... the evidence being similar bones...then I teach that a common designer shows similar bones.

Again no evidence for evolution... just teaching the theory.

I also show people like Bill Nye who think it's science to say we descended from aliens.

I show that's the absurdity of leaving the bible.

Interesting when your not shackled by evolution

Isn't this refreshing? A christian who admits he is blatantly lying to children?

But I wonder what he hopes to accomplish with such an admission.

 

[Rumraket]

I do show alternate viewpoints...hello... I just don't show them in ways you think they have to be shown.

I think it would be more honest to let the people who actually HOLD those viewpoints speak for themselves, instead of you trying to speak for them.

For example, I don't think you are correctly stating my viewpoints. And I don't think you're correctly stating Bill Nye's viewpoints either and I'm still waiting for you to show a source for your quote.

I also think that you are afraid to give a source because you know inside yourself that you have not been honest about what Bill Nye said.

 

[Rumraket]

Evolution belongs in religion and art.

Evolution is where it belongs: The scientific basis for the biological sciences, as it explains why we have the diversity of life that we do.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Not much to understand there. Just a theory.

Another blunder creationists make all the time: "Just a theory" :lol: