It's not bullshit, it's the verbalisation of my thoughts. If I said something incorrectly, it's very disrepectful of you to call my thoughts bullshit.

If you're wondering why people don't like talking religion, it's because it gets offensive too easily. I'm not sure if that's what you want, but it's not what I want. Let people express themselves. If they are wrong, it will come through by asking questions. You don't need to call what someone says bullshit to bring a point across.

I'm in the "religion can be useful for a certain kind of people" camp and it seems you fit those "certain kind of people". This is not meant to be degrading if it may sound that way. I however can not believe in a God of which there is no evidence to be seen in a world where truth is mostly relative.

If you don't enjoy having your bullshit called out, it's pretty simple...don't bullshit.

Saying you're a logical individual and then proceeding to say that God is 100% certain without even a modicum of evidence is beyond rationality. It's obtuseness to rationality. Provide evidence, as I've stated countless times already, or stop professing this opinion as something of merit. It's nonsense.

I am not sure I was covering all my angles when I wrote that, I was just expressing my opinion, but didn't cover the specific points as to why I thought that. You remind me of the rigor of the interwebz and now I'm required to explain every single detail of my thought lest it's to be called utter bullshit.

Ok, let me try to see exactly what I meant by that. First, I believe abiogenesis to be virtually impossible. I watched a video about the odds of one of the DNA proteins being formed from matter and it was something absolutely silly, but as I said it's been two years. Let's just assume I have that data on hand for a sec because I'm at home just enjoying my boxing day off.

Now, with abiogenesis as an unfeasible explanation given article X (again, let's just go along with the logic), I look at the complexity of the world around me as evidence for special creation. It reminds me more of the care I put into a project (art, mechanics) than anything else. When I think of laughter, or reason, these concepts are abstract and would appear to have no bearing in terms of survival. Seeing as how so few people actually make use of their sense of humor, I'm not sure exactly how such a gene (if it exists) survives.

There isn't much more to it. If I see a plane, I will think that someone made it. It's not much different from when I look at humans and the beauty and complexity of our world. I personally don't believe such complexity of structure (cell, animals, insects) comes at random.

Then, add to that the idea of inbreeding and how is it possible, if inbreeding leads to deformities, how is it possible in an embryonic species?

In summary, there are many reasons for me to believe in an intentful designer rather than random unguided complexity in our world, and also many limitations to the genesis of new species given the working of breeding as seen today. Also, infused complexity makes more sense given those constraints (inbreeding, incompatibility of breeding between species).

No one cares what you believe, you've proven yourself entirely irrelevant with your lack of evidence to support your positions. The scientific consensus is that abiogensis is how we came to be, you're free to believe that or not. You're also free to believe that gravity isn't real, that Earth is flat, Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead, and that Atlas carries the Earth on his back. 

Inbreeding doesn't always lead to deformities...again you show a fundamental misunderstanding. There is a higher risk of deformity, that is all.

You can breed between species if the genus is the same...prime example: Mule is the product of a male donkey and a female horse.

Conway's game of Life. Quite simple, but based upon given initial generations can lead to quite astounding patterns.

You're an insulting person and a cherry-picker. Bravo.

Well, I think that concludes the thread folks. People who use religious threads in order to debase other people are the reason the debate becomes thoroughly uninteresting.

Thanks, and have a wonderful Christmas. Good evening and good night.

Well you can't really blame Athiest for mocking religion. It's so absurd that any legitimate criticizm just comes off as mockery.

Also religious people who claim god's word as truth and put it above religion as the most arrogant of them all.

But what about my argument? I was expecting an interesting answer :(

I knew I was missing something.

I like the b-day challenge because we had a few kids in our grade have the same birthday due to the possible combinations between students.

To be fully honest, it's something I'd like to look into, but I think the numbers I heard were low probability even considering the combinations. I think the case was pretty solid math. I'll come up with something soon, but if I forget, we know each other (I saw you in the Maelstrom thread a while ago) just knock on my wall.

Can't stand the heat, get outta the kitchen.

There is nothing up for debate, you offer nothing to substantiate your viewpoint. That's my issue. I thoroughly demolished your entire argument in one post.

Do you have any evidence or just more "I believe, I feel, etc."?