How many misunderstandings and blatantly false statements can you find in the following paragraphs?

Wow. Complete lack of understanding about what science is, and what it is capable of. My favorites:

"You're assuming origins is a scientific discussion. It is not." (It is.)

"Since no human was around to observe the origin of life, the universe and everything, it cannot be considered a scientific process, as the scientific method requires observation, testing and replication." (We can observe, test and replicate lots of things we could not see when they happened.)

"All of our observations thus far have led us to conclude that it is utterly impossible for life to arise from non-life." (No, they have led YOU to conclude that, but not US.)

"I believe the universe's cause is God. You believe it is nothing. Literally nothing." (I'm not inclined to speak for you, although this person is, but I'm guessing your actual position is simply that we have not found the cause yet. Not knowing is the same as, "literally nothing.")

Well...they used "you're" correctly.

No one saw "god" create anything either. At least as far as the Big Bang and evolution are concerned, we (scientists) can do the math and observe and test the fossil record and molecular genetics, etc..

I couldn't get past the first few sentences. If he believes something had to be directly observed by someone to be known, he better have an issue with forensics too. It put a lot of people away through a method he does not consider valid.

I found 82 errors and then I got tired of counting.

I have one life to live and am not wasting it reading that drivel. It lost me at sentence one.

"You're assuming origins is a scientific discussion. It is not."

tfu;dr

I have reviewed this, and I found it to be 100% accurate.

Thanks for sharing this with us.

-

Some of it is. Think about it like this the Big Bang Theory was written up by a devout catholic priest by the name of Georges Lemaître, Evolutionary theory while most people seem to just assume Darwin wrote the entire theory this is actually false Darwin's original theory had no really backing or grounds it wasn't until the 1940s when they applied the gene studies of Gregor Mendel, Mendel is the one that proved mutation and selective breeding. And Gregor Mendel was a very devout Catholic Friar. I doubt that two clergy members would have written theories that were made to disprove their religion and because both of them were believers their entire lives it is obvious their theories didn't disprove god. It is kind of ironic that people see these theories as championing atheism when in reality they were written up by catholic clergy.

I agree. Out of nothing, nothing comes. Nothing plus nothing = nothing. To believe that all came about from nothing by the power of nothing, for no reason or purpose and by random accidental explosion, is really very idiotic and possibley even delusional.
Simple truth as the Bible teaches: "In the beginning God created by His Word".
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/dawkins-delusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51rR4aC9aMg&NR=1&feature=endscreen
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html
http://www.icr.org/fossilization/
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-index
http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/

When asked to describe my thoughts on GOD and Religion my train of thought led me right to gravity. . .
You can’t see gravity, You can’t taste it, I just know one thing for certain, that it exists.

The mystery's of faith an GOD are beyond human comprehension
Faith concerns questions which cannot be settled by evidence.

I feel bad that if someone does not have faith they would want others to agree with them!

How can the universe create itself out of nothingness? Given the fact that the universe began to exist, it must have had a “cause” that originated it.Doesn't it make more sense to assume the existence of a Creation. The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that GOD came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, GOD is not in the category of things that are created or caused. GOD is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.
We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing being is what we call GOD ,GOD is the un-caused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, GOD unlike the universe, had no beginning, so he doesn’t need a cause. Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since GOD is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created..@


Life without GOD is like an un- sharpened pencil it has no point..
You can't see the wind, but you know it is there because you can see what the wind is doing. You can know that the wind is there because you can feel it.GOD is like the wind, you can't see him

Several on every line.
Not a bit of it is "accurate" nor "supportable," it's the delusional rantings of the ignorant and gullible.

Should I go back through the things you posted and ask the same things?