Picture a simple organism. Its genetic code is mutated. There is a 50% chance that the mutation will do nothing. There is a 49% chance the mutation will be terminal. Of the remaining 1%, there is a 5% chance the organism will become more simple. A 90% chance that, though there is a change, the organism is neither more nor less derived. And a 5% chance that the organism becomes more complex.

So there is a 5% of 1% chance that a mutation will make the organism less or more ‘complex.’

Keep doing this for 3 billion years. Most organisms will remain ’simple.’ A few, a very very very few, will evolve to the point where he can contemplate something so delightfully improbable, yet possible.

I majored in history in college, but one of my many hobbies is evolutionary biology and paleontology. His explanation still works for me. It has also worked for at least one christianist fundamentalist Christian I know.

Of course they still insisted that god factored in there. Somewhere.

Sorry for the ramble. Occupational hazard.

What evidence does your priest have for this claim?

You probably attribute life’s goods and bads to science, ONLY. [. . .] Mana, Mana, it must be lonely where you are…no gods, no science…just an empty space , with video games floating around you….

It never ceases to amuse me how theists always seem to prefer this kind of projection over honest discussion. They would be lonely without their sky-Daddy; ergo, everybody would be lonely without their sky-Daddy. QED.

The reverse side of what you say are the sociopaths, irresponsable sick liers…not real God believers.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to but some sociopaths are believers.

You are telling me now that when a doctor gives a certain treatement to a sick person, suggesting it does good, is…delusional???
You said some cures proved to be poison. If they were poison they could not have been cures, so whoever promoted them as cures was either trying to make a buck or was delusional (as in not thinking straight). Doctors are generally good at what they do and they will not give you a cure that’s poison, and if they do give you something that’s poses risks they will warn of the associated risks. Crooks will try to sell you something that’s not a cure but can potentially harm you. So please don’t try to read between the lines of my statement, and try to imply I said doctors are delusional.

You have to make a distinction in your comments about which religion you talk about. Some are stronger than the others. Some have a God that “forgives” more than the other.
That’s what you don’t understand. I don’t have to make a distinction between religions based on how forgiving they are. Each religion has its moral virtues, as well as its irrationality. Atheists are not concerned with which church is the true church, or which church is better than the other. We leave that to religions to debate amongst themselves.

is Marx “God” to take “His” word for…or he had a strong scientific proof of that statement???
Does this imply that one should only take the word of god as proof?
Regardless, you said cures proved to be poison, and I referred to the fact that you are not giving examples of cures that are poison. The poison statement made me think of Marx’s statement on religion being the opiate of the message, but I don’t know of a metaphor related to medical cures being poison. So please give me some examples.

“Mana, Mana, it must be lonely where you are…no gods, no science…just an empty space , with video games floating around you….”
Wow, a personal attack, with my name written all over it. How flattering. In an effort to disappoint those who would expect a defensive stance to this statement, I will say… keep on with the fuel for this atheist fire.