FishNChips007: You cannot tell me, nor can you tell anyone else how life got here.

And you can't say "we don't know, therefore god".

I don't think FishNlies is coming back is he? If he does I'll bet a year's wages he won't honestly address why his lie that scientists have falsified evolution, and that this has somehow been missed by every major global news network, the entire global scientific community, the Nobel committee, and even the catholic church.

I will add another year's wages that he won't offer an honest cogent explanation of why we can see the light from stars that are billions of light years away, if his new hero Ray Comfort is correct and the universe is just a few thousand years old?

I'd also like to know what "views" he is claiming I hold, and have asserted don't need faith? As all I did was point out his lie that anther poster needed faith to believe the scientific theory of evolution, which is clearly a lie, as the theory consists of over 160 years of objective scientific evidence collected globally, and the species evolution is an accepted scientific fact, and an the theory is considered valid by the global scientific community. So instead of acknowledging and withdrawing his lie, and his objection to being labelled dishonest he has added another lie.

Valid scientific theories do not require faith, they are the very antithesis of faith based myths like creationism. What's more, creationism would remain an unevidenced myth making unevidenced and inexplicable woo woo claims for magic, EVEN IF species evolution were entirely falsified. Something creatards are always keen to avoid acknowledging, as it is not a choice between current fact based science and their unevidenced creationist fantasy.

I would however bet a months wages he will continue to object to being labelled dishonest.

"Comfort is also known for deliberate quote-mining, with many recorded instances to prove it. In his book Evolution: A Fairy Tale for Grownups, he openly admitted in the introduction that he knew he was quote-mining but went ahead anyway because lying for Jesus is justifiable. "

So FishNChips007, there you have Ray Comfort admitting himself not only that he is a liar, but that he thinks lying is justified if it's "for Jesus". Care to comment?

"To this day, Comfort falsely links the Big Bang theory, the origin of life (abiogenesis) and evolution as if they are one or as if they are dependent on each other, but the fact is they are separate fields and do not require the others to stand on their own."

So a bare faced liar then.

FishNChips007 I once had secular views myself, until I learned that ultimately, you cannot escape the Truth.

That’s empty rhetoric since you have failed to demonstrate any objective evidence for your beliefs, some of which are directly contradicted by known objective scientific facts, like species evolution.

FishNChips007 “Next issue: Can you send me a screenshot of where Ray Comfort, word for word, says, "It's okay to lie for Jesus?" Clearly, this would be hypocrisy, which Ray has spoken against on several occasions. I think you are either misquoting him, or you yourselves are guilty of quote-mining.”

Here then again..

"Comfort is also known for deliberate quote-mining, with many recorded instances to prove it. In his book Evolution: A Fairy Tale for Grownups, he openly admitted in the introduction that he knew he was quote-mining but went ahead anyway because lying for Jesus is justifiable"

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ray_Comfort

I gave you that link already, so your biased denials and ad hominem accusations are pretty pathetic if you can't be bothered to read what it says, and it references one of Ray Comforts own books as the source. 

" Even if Ray Comfort did lie or show dishonesty, that would not change my faith in God Almighty. He is true and righteous, holy, and does not lie. He is perfect and rich in mercy. His love is true love. I don't just believe in Him, I know Him, and He knows me. My faith is in Him, not in Ray Comfort."

Then don't use Comfort's lies to prop up your superstition on here, as that is the very definition of hypocrisy. 

FishNChips007 “How can you blame wars and violence on Christians? Maybe you never heard of the small hermit country of North Korea? Have you not heard of the terrible tortures its citizens endure under atheistic leadership?”

That’s a dishonest straw man, as no one on here claimed that wars and atrocities are only caused by Christians, or even theists, people were simply responding  to your No True Scotsman fallacy lie that these acts could not be committed by Christians, and this has been explained to you, so your self-righteous dishonesty is manifest here again. As is your lack of interest in honest or rational debate.

FishNChips007 “What about the multitude of people who were killed under atheistic communism? Why do you not judge in this case?”

Again this is a dishonest lie, as many posters including myself have addressed this, and unlike your lie that no christians can cause wars or atrocities, not one atheist here has ever claimed no atheist can cause such things.

FishNChips007    “If you are honest, then be consistent in all matters. You would do well to rid yourselves of your childish rhetoric, your mocking and your scoffing. Unbeknownst to most of you, you are on the team which aims to steal, kill, and destroy.”

 You might want to read that back, and see if you can work out why it stinks of rank hypocrisy. That is besides it being an egregious lie of course, as there are large and longstanding bodies of research that show atheists are at least as moral as theists when compared on any level playing field.

FishNChips007  “go and study the Bombardier Beetle and ask yourself how could this creature possibly have evolved? Don't just take someone's word saying, "This beetle evolved," but ask yourself, "how," and be honest. Look at the creature, study its inner workings, and see whether evolution was possible for this creature. Be honest and do not suppress the truth.”  

Species evolution is an objective scientific fact, if you want to delude yourself it isn’t then two thoughts occur to me, YOU learn all there is to know about it, and then take your objections to a scientific forum where they belong, I shall scan the global news networks for news of your success. Secondly don’t ever make pretentious proclamations of your desire for, or possession of truth on here again, as it’s such a farcical lie it is quite nauseous.

Just to hammer the point that it is you who is dishonestly denying the truth here, not those who accept known scientific facts, I will illustrate your lying bias with a single question you keep ignoring…

How many scientific facts apart from species evolution do you deny, and how many of those in no way contradict any part of your superstitious religious beliefs?

You might think we’re all morons, but you’re wrong…

POINTLESS REPETITIVE VAPID PREACHING RHETORIC REMOVED All of your mocking and scoffing prevents you from opening your eyes and seeing what is really going on.

If you don’t want your vapid unevidenced superstitious claims mocked then don’t share them with people who are going to treat them with a critical open mind, and not the blinkered biased blind reverence you seem to have mastered, and think is a path to some esoteric truth that objective evidence can’t find.

Ultimately, it is likely that no amount of evidence will convince you, because you do not want to be convinced.

Well a theist will have to post some objective evidence first, and you like all the rest have only posted the usual fallacious claims and arguments that deny scientific facts, and vapid rhetoric that outrages reason, and now this preaching sententious drivel.

If you admit that God is, then you will be morally accountable for even your inner thought-life. (vapid pointless sententious preaching removed)

Wrong again, if a deity exists and wants to sit in judgement on its created pets, then that would be the case irrespective of whether I know it exists or not. Either way this no more evidences a deity than the rest of your vapid preaching.

Oh look, it's scatter-gun assertion time, otherwise known as the Gish Gallop, after the duplicitous creationist practitioner of apologetics who deployed this mendacious practice before his welcome demise.

I'll simply deal with this tiresome assertion that creationists love to masturbate over:

After having considered this, apply it and go and study the Bombardier Beetle and ask yourself how could this creature possibly have evolved?

I'm going to enjoy dealing with this one, not least because I'm an invertebrate zoologist, and familiar with such topics as insect phylogeny.

First of all, one of the chemical constituents of the discharge is a quinone compound, and numerous quinones have long been known to be secreted by beetles for the purpose of hardening the cuticle. Furthermore, hydrogen peroxide is synthesised by a wide range of organisms for various purposes, and peroxisomes in eukaryotic cells are present for, among other purposes, the breakdown of long chain fatty acids for metabolic purposes. Since these two chemicals are generated in the relevant taxa for other purposes, repurposing them for defensive means is entirely within the remit of evolution, and indeed, repurposing extant entities for new purposes has been a central development arising from evolution in many other instances.

The fun part being, of course, that the two chemicals in question, hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide can be mixed without reacting. The reaction is actually triggered by two families of enzymes, one family being the catalases, the other family being the peroxidases, examples of which are also found pretty much throughout eukaryotic cells. Catalases are enzymes that decompose hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen, and which form part of the superoxide dismutase pathway found, once again, in virtually all eukaryote cells, and thus have an ancient origin. Peroxidases are also found in a wide range of eukaryotic cells, and again serve various metabolic functions in those cells - photosynthesis in plants and aerobic respiration are merely two functions utilising these enzymes. Co-opting these existing enzymes for the purpose is again well within the remit of evolution.

As for the physical structures, glands with external ducts for the purpose of secretion litter the biosphere. The gall bladder is an example thereof in humans, though one that secretes to an internal organ instead of the exterior of the organism, and ducted glands for secreting pheromones are pretty much ubiquitous in the insect world.

Now, hydroquinone on its own is capable of causing contact dermatitis in vertebrates, and so, secretion thereof on its own would constitute a useful defensive mechanism on its own. Hydrogen peroxide also has the ability to bleach skin and initiate contact dermatitis, so combining the two agents would be doubly effective as a defensive mechanism. So, a gland secreting hydroquinone first, followed by the addition of hydrogen peroxide to the mix, would be a first step in the evolution of the bombardier beetle. Adding a second chamber to the gland would constitute an elementary step, involving the co-opting of well-known regulatory genes such as the bmp, fgf and wnt families, all present throughout the Arthropods. This would then be followed by lining the second chamber with cells secreting the catalase and peroxidase enzymes, again an elementary step involving the same regulatory genes. Modification of the elytra, to generate the flanges of Coanda that are used for directing the resulting spray, would again be another elementary step involving the same set of regulatory genes.

Indeed, there are multiple lineages of bombardier beetle, and these lineages exhibit features indicative of the process having evolved step by step over time. For example, Metrius contractus lacks the flanges of Coanda, and produces a mist instead of a directed spray, while various members of the SubFamily Paussinae exhibit two-chambered glands, but do not produce an explosive secretion, instead simply ejecting the hydroquinone/peroxide mix without reacting them using enzymes. So we already have living examples of relevant intermediate stages.

But of course, the tendency of mythology fanboys to try and point to topics they've learned nothing about, as purported "gotchas" for actual science, is one of the more mirthful aspects of the relevant aetiology.