Why do atheists consider the concept of a creator as invalid?

@MaryMum: There is even less evidence for an explanation of the universe and all created beings without God.

@Dreammmer: There's no sense in arguing with you. Literally not a single word you just said is correct, and there's nothing I can do to change your mind. Good luck to you.

@MaryMum: as I said, you have zero evidence. All you can trust on is your reason and theeories by scientists.

@MaryMum: Biblical texts reveal scientifical details way before being discovered by scientists themselves.

The whole world in itself is evidence of a creator, for if you sup pose that invisible gravitational forces which keep the earth afloat came about as a result of chance and the right amount of necessary matter needed for the sustainment of life, came about as a result of nothing, then a building must be able to be believed to appear out of nothing.

The atheist (must) ultimately confers (that) everything to have come from nothing. He details his grounds as being based on empirical evidence. Well then us the evidence of something resulting from nothing?

The atheist begs evidence for the existence of God but demands it must be on his grounds: that is a mighty bias. If we detail that a child is able to find a piece of hidden candy by direction to the hiding spit as revealed to him, so also the atheist is able to know God only by how He states the way He can be found his and not by what way the atheist decides to pave (or demand).

@Dreammmer: Theories by scientists are based on reason. In science, when you prove something with evidence, you call that a theory.

@Lincoln98: Plus that list is just horrible. I love the "Science then" column. What evidence do you have that there was science being done in biblical times? I would love to see some evidence you have for that.

Plus just spot checking a few of these scripture verses, they say VERY vague things, that don't agree with what you posted. You really need to work on this ...

@MaryMum: My trust in Jesus Christ is also based on reason. You trust scientists who are human beings just like yourself. I trust Jesus Christ and His word.
Science has no proof for the missing links in the evolution theory

@Lincoln98:
Your little bit of writing beneath the table shows, quite simply, a comical lack of understanding of the worldview you're fighting against.

As for the table itself... (The numbers refer to the rows of the table, including the top row with the column headings):
1) "Then" means nothing in this context.
2) Isaiah 40:22 refers to earth as a "circle", which if you remember from your maths class when you were 8, is a 2 dimentional shape (you know, flat).
3) Metaphors aren't evidence.
4) See above
5) Atoms aren't "invisible elements".
6) The bBible had the right idea on this one, but it's poetic rather than scientific. The Bible presents ideas that may or may not be correct, but it never presents evidence so none of the predictions mean anything.
7) That's such a shameless spin on the Bible quotes that I refuse to respond
8 ) Refers to strength of wind and weight of water, not weight of air.
9) Again, proposition with no evidence can be dismissed.
10) Blood is not the "source of life and health". I pity the doctors that have to put up with this shit.
11) Refer to the small rant about evidence
12) This shows a serious misunderstanding of what springs are, judging by what's been put in the "science then" category.
13) Leviticus 15:13 says "fresh water". Not running water.

@MaryMum: You went through all the verses?? I am impressed with your dedication :)

@Pherick: Mind you, "Science Then" is not science done in biblical times but science's conclusion on matters before realising new observations and thereby coming to new conclusions/"Science Now"
This merely shows how things realised by science only in recent 2 centuries have been commented about already in the Bible, in which these scientific findings were recorded over 3 millenials ago, by men who herded sheep for a living and farmed to take care of themselves, having a wheel as the closest thing to advanced technology. And yet, they all make one claim: that they were able to wrote this thing's as a result of being inspired of God.


They say very vague things? Please enlighten me.

@Lincoln98: Thankfully MaryMum did the heavy lifting for me in terms of thew bible verses.

Also ..
You admit the bible was written by the group of people above and yet you still someone use it a basis for a religion? Thats just crazy to me.

@Dreammmer: Ah, the well known "missing links" argument. I can't be bothered to debunk it for you now, so go look it up.

As for trust, I don't trust scientists. I read their research and look at the evidence myself when I come to conclusions. And frankly, I am far more inclined to trust people who have dedicated their entire lives to this research than a man who may or may not have existed, who you only believe in because your parents taught you to.

@MaryMum: How do you know my parents are Christians? When you have no explanation you invent an explanation. Guess how that makes you look like?
Yes you trust scientists. You admit it in your post. You have no evidence at all. You have excuses to live without God. My opinion

@Dreammmer:
A Christian?

@Dreammmer: It is simply the most common reason, so I assumed it. I'm not perfect.

I did not admit it in my post. I don't know where you got that from, but it simply isn't true.

We have a lot of evidence. You're just too blinded by faith to see it.

@Dreammmer: "Science has no proof for the missing links in the evolution theory"

There are no 'missing links' in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

The idea of 'links in a chain' is not... never has been... a part of the theory of evolution. it's simply not needed, not to mention just plain wrong. It seems to be something that's found mainly in creationist indoctrination pamphlets... they often contain that ridiculous image of some sort of monkey slowly morphing into another figure which morphs into yet another figure, ending with a human. Of course, that has nothing to do with evolution. It’s a specious straw-man.

In short... that's simply not how evolution works. As you will be aware, different species share common ancestors, so that there is a series of divergences between any two species... and the evidence for that process is overwhelming.

@Lincoln98: Here's an interesting exercise: name one scientific fact from the bible, the Quran, or the Torah, that was not already known before it was mentioned in whichever book mentions it, and which has subsequently been verified by contemporary science

@newjaninev2: If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.

While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.

If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.

Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.

Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!

Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?

* Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.

@Dreammmer: Are you actually reading my comments?

'Missing links' are not a part of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (although creationists seem to think they are).

The ongoing error seems to be an artefact of creationists' ongoing inability to understand the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

@newjaninev2: I think the article I posted stands on its own and everyone capable of reading and thinking on his own will benefit greatly from it

The article that refers to something in the Theory of Evolution by natural Selection that isn't actually a part of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?

That article?

The benefit that accrues to those capable of independent thought might not work in the way you expect...

@newjaninev2: "Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them."

@Dreammmer: Yeeees, you really aren't reading what I write, are you?

So-called 'missing links' aren't a part of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection... and never were.

One species simply doesn't turn into another species. Different species have common ancestors. Your idea of 'missing links' would probably be from the straw-man misrepresentation of evolution that is commonly found in creationist pamphlets.

Whoever it is that you're quoting is simply making that very mistake.

@Dreammmer: The idea of "links" in evolution was once an explanation used very rarely by some scientists to explain to people who don't understand the science of evolution how it works. The reason you never hear actual credible scientists talk about links (except in rebuttal of the missing links argument, of course) is because it's a very, very bad explanation of the phenomenon. As @newjaninev2 said, it isn't, and never was, a part of the actual Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

@MaryMum: With respect, the christian idea of a creator is a hypothesis, not a theory.

As you know, scientific theories are supported by evidence that has been tested and not found wanting.