Website is being redesign with new theme.
Please bear with us while we do this.
YecHeadquarters

Literal 6 Day Creation
YecHeadquarters

Literal 6 Day Creation
Website is being redesign with new theme.
Please bear with us while we do this.
YecHeadquarters

Literal 6 Day Creation
Your menu is empty or not selected! How to config a menu

Why atheists cuss during debates

The main reason atheists get mad during a debate about evolution is because of their frustrations when we make a point they cannot refute, and it makes them face the reality that what they believe is really a lie. Proof? Out of all the claims made about evolution from a single cell to all that we see, less then 1% is actually observable. And the reason for this is time constraints. To observe the 99%, one would have to have a time machine.

The *claimed* Tree of Life is nothing more than an interpretation of the evidence. There is *zero* observation because of time constraints. That makes the drawing more of an opinion than fact. And because on evolutionists are allowed to:

1) Dig up the evidence.
2) Interpret the evidence.
3) Peer review the evidence.
4) Make any conclusion concerning the evidence.

It makes the evidence not only unobserved due to time constraints, but extremely bias considering that those who already believe that it’s a true proven fact are the only ones allowed to do any work concerning the theory

And the proof that this goes well beyond science, is that atheists use it to support their worldviews and agendas, which makes the theory personal, which ensures there will *always be bias* concerning it. The only way one can approach either idea (creation or evolution) from a non-biased stand point is to:

1) Remove the theist from creation.
2) Remove the atheist from evolution.

In this way the evidence for both ideas stand on it’s own, and can be tested on it’s merits alone which 100% supports what the scientific method is all about. The question is: Who would be willing to do this, and would both sides accept the conclusions?

As one atheist said, that I brought this up to: You ask the impossible. No one can become that neutral to the subject, no one… Was he saying this because it’s true, or because he’s unwilling to give up his biases because he knows the outcome would not be in his favor?

Now do I say that because I am bias towards what I believe? Nope. After 25 years of debating atheists on the subject of C vs. E, one thing I have found is that if you are truly searching for truth. You have to consider everything. And be willing to step back from you belief and say: Prove what you claim, and I’ll convert right here right now. And I have done this on several occasions much to the surprise of my debate opponents who then say: Even if I did prove it you’d still reject it.

To which I respond: Then prove it and let’s see. Go get as many people as you need to do this and return and let’s see who’s really bias. And they never do. They either leave, call me names etc…. But the challenge is never ever met. That is because the challenge is a put up or shut up type challenge. And because people are not really looking for truth from either side to any degree, because they have made their belief personal. They cannot accept being wrong.

The perfect example is this episode of friends where Ross and Pheobe have an argument over the subject of evolution. And Ross cannot accept that Pheobe has a different opinion and that he might be wrong.

Click image to watch this short video