Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It’s good sound, timely evidence, not hypocrisy. Many can see the sock puppetry going on. You seemingly cannot help yourself and without wishing to be derogatory as it’s not a personal attack having public knowledge of your condition, you come across as an unwell militant.
Wow. Accusing people, without evidence, of sock puppetry and calling them unwell.
Yes, very well. Do you mean you can prove my accusation is wrong? I doubt that.
That's not how it works, friend. Burden's on you.
Reference a post of yours that contains actual evidence.
And off you go into an ad hom again, while continuing to ignore all the substantiate evidence and answers you've been given. You just couldn't make it up. Are you actually an atheist trying to make faith look absurd?
Hilarious. Your claim, your burden of proof. Shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy (a basic mistake in logic).
You abuse "God's word". Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you have to believe all of it literally. And yes, you do claim that God is a liar. You simply refuse to learn how you do it. Are you bold enough to learn or are you merely going to use the ostrich defense?
No, "believe" is the wrong word. You should try to learn the difference between belief and knowledge. Most Christians know that evolution is a fact because they were properly taught about the subject. There are no lies in evolution. At least you have not found any. You cannot support your claims against evolution properly, that should tell you something. You seem to be conflating evolution with the Bible. It is filled with inconsistencies and has evidence of "back-engineering". But let's not start a discussion about how the Bible fails right now. That should be the topic of another thread.
LOL! Wow! Now you are suggesting that God lied by using a proxy. You do not appear to have thought out the consequences of your post.
That is a claim. It is not evidence.
You do not know what evidence is. It is well defined in the sciences. Are you willing to learn?
Comedians are typically quite intelligent. Anybody can laugh at a joke, but it takes wit to create humor. So, not surprisingly, Seth McFarland, George Carlin, Bill Maher, Ricky Gervais, David Cross, Larry David, and scores more comedians are vocal atheist comedians. You'll recognize many if not most of those people.
This is what keeps you going, isn't it - the hope that those who disagree with you will suffer.
You're not alone. Check out this beautiful Christian witness:
No, that's your confused understanding of English that said no such thing.
How would you know? Do you offer yourself to others as a reliable measure of what comments are substantive? And it's "you're," not "your."
Your question is ill-formed. Ask a better question. Mutations aren't intelligent. Nor are strands of DNA. Minds can be, and minds can gain information through the senses, but not unconscious entities. They can increase in complexity, which is form, but it shouldn't be called information unless it is apprehended by a conscious agent. Before that, it is merely form becoming more complex. Have you ever thought about the word IN-form? It suggests this way of viewing form and information, one being outside of mind, the other the apprehended imprint of this external form onto consciousness.
This is incorrect, but I doubt that is of interest to you. Repeating it, however, is. Gene pools don't degrade. They evolve to into genes conferring more fecundity through natural selection.
We're talking about populations and their gene pools, but otherwise, you got something correct. Survival doesn't make populations evolve. Genetic variation subjected to natural selection across generations makes populations evolve.
Didn't you once claim to have been a chemist? Do you know why some reactions are spontaneous? Do you know how a catalyst works? Do you know what exothermic and endothermic mean in chemistry? Have you ever seen anything like this?
Cange ToE to creationism and 50+ years to millennia, and the statement is correct. Evolution is learned through education, creationism through indoctrination. Why? Only one is taught using a sound, evidenced argument, the presentation of which is education. The other depends on repetition and a lack of critical scrutiny to infuse into a defenseless mind.
Change God-hating men to creation apologists, and you're good to go. It's the apologist who feel free to lie:
Yet you trust that god.
You must think that your unsupported sock puppet claim needs to be disproven to be rejected. It doesn't. Nor would it matter if you were correct.
If your interest were sincere, you'd already know, or if you're a teenager and just became interested recently, you would have begun with a Google search. I call what you're doing, "Go fetch for me." It's always a futile effort. Nevertheless, I may encounter a religious apologist who really wants to learn some day. I will recognize that person by his or her initiative to seek out information and bring whatever questions his reading create to RF. Fair enough? You do the legwork that demonstrates that your interest is sincere if it is, and any number of us will field your specific questions about what you read. If you don't want to do that, that's fine, but you shouldn't expect to be taught like you're in a classroom.
You don't and apparently can't leave your religious beliefs out. They direct your thinking. It's why you say that evidence doesn't support natural selection, not the reason you give involving complexity. This is where I am occasionally asked if I am a mind reader. No, but I read English and have several decades under my belt evaluating human behavior. Without a religious belief, people have no difficulty accepting that nature can generate complexity. And I don't believe that you know enough about the subject to have an informed opinion.
Here's more evidence of what motivates your thinking. This is the "conclusion" you have working toward. I put that word in quotes, because it's actually a premise made to look like a conclusion by front-loading it with a specious argument - something I call a pseudo-conclusion.
You probably should have begun with this. Also, why deny being a science denier when you also ay that you will deny science that contradicts scripture?
How do suppose all those fossils of extinct hominin fossils got there? Were they created as "kinds"? If so, did they all have their own Adams?
But you say it is incorrect. If the theory is incorrect, what is correct instead? Don't forget to include an explanation for the fossils of extinct manlike creatures in your answer. If they didn't arise through evolution, you can't without invoking an intelligent designer for them. Did you want to suggest the god of the Christian Bible as their designer?
Are you able to give a rational, stable explanation as to why you do what you do, attacking religion and specifically God. Do you know why you do it?
Did he "attack religion" or did he just attack your religion? They are not one and the same. Why are you afraid to learn even the basics of science?
How do you know you haven’t been duped into believing an overly hyped, hypothesised religion? There’s not much repetition to confirm the ‘Lucy’ find, recently spoken about on here, was not a hoax.
By studying it, learning what it is based on, seeing the evidence, and testing the logic. You know, all the things you are too afraid to do yourself.
You seem to be attacking God a lot but seem to have no answer why you do it.
Pointing out the obvious problems with the beliefs of your tiny, extremist cult, is not the same as attacking god.
You’ve been duped. The only fact you have is mutations. The drive of man with hypotheses is intrinsically flawed from the start, now they backfit everything to it.
Why can you not give a rational, stable explanation why certain atheist comedians, those that have won the Richard Dawkins Award, vocally try to do down God every opportunity they get.
More baseless assertions and still not addressing the actual evidence that you've been given. You know that ignoring the content of something and just asserting that it's wrong, doesn't make it go away, don't you? You're like a tiny child stamping its little foot really, really hard and insisting it's right and everybody else is wrong. It's rather sad really.