The latter is why I'm becoming less and less interested in joining these discussions and debates. Answering the same questions over and over only to have my responses ignored and seeing the same questions raised again as if never answered.
You and I have discussed this before. There is no need for you to answer any questions if you prefer not to. I didn't. I just directed him to answers.
My other purpose was to call out a creationist asking for evidence that I know he isn't interested in and won't devote any time in reviewing. I would recommend that since it frustrates you to stop answering the creationists as if they were sincere about learning. Isn't that all we ever see? You don't need to be Charlie Brown to their Lucy:
Where is the morality in taking on such tactics? Where are the Christian ethics being employed by those claiming Christianity, but only seeming to provide a lip service to it, when it is really their "version" that is being served by tactics that are supposed to be disowned by Christianity?
You know the answer to that:
"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther
He wants to represent that he cares about reason and evidence. Lying is a way of life for many of these people. Look at the three Supreme Court justices Trump nominated. They all lied about their intentions, and undoubtedly with no pangs of guilt.
I'm glad you're different. Your values seem to be the same as mine, a situation I've commented on before. I call you and the other Christians who esteem honesty, critical thought, and scholarship theistic humanists, since your formulation seems to be the same as this atheistic humanist: the application of reason to empathy and evidence to determine what is true, good, and right. Not surprisingly, anybody who does that comes to more or less the same answers to those questions. Unlike many of your fellow believers, you seem to respect democracy, church-state separation, and education while avoiding the bigotries taught and the idea that how other law-abiding people live, who they love, and how they configure their families is your business.
Others obviously agree with that. I do not.
That was in response to, "
God did it is no more of an explanation than saying that Norm did it. You have no god to demonstrate nor any mechanism for it to do anything if it did exist."
You say that you disagree, but you offer no counterargument. How did you rule out that Norm did it?
Natural laws are set in place as far as I am concerned not by magic, but by God
That IS magic.
Yes the first life form on earth was formed from the dust of the ground.
Sort of. We don't normally refer to those chemicals as dust, but we can allow a little poetry into the discussion.
But it was lacking one thing. The breath of life which had to be supplied from a living life form.
The first life didn't breathe.
And life that does breathe does so without anybody blowing breath into it.
I guess that I was correct about you having no interest in educating yourself. You didn't even mention all of that material I posted for you, which is why I don't try to teach creationists even when they say that they want to learn. They really don't, which was the point I was actually trying to make, and why I didn't try to explain anything to you more scientific than comments like this one. Life is made of chemistry, not dust, and breathing animals do so spontaneously.