The Miracle of Water.

[BilliardsBall]

Because it failed to address the point. It evaded the point, actually.

Are we now ignoring all the other criteria you put forth? It's only all about tithing now?

I've tithed. I have received nothing from God's end. It's as though he doesn't exist. So what you're saying is that YOUR personal anecdotes count as evidence towards your hypothesis, but mine don't even count at all? You're just going to ignore them and cherry pick your supposedly positive results.
If that's the case then I'm sorry to tell you that your methodology is terrible and demonstrates nothing.


By the way, how are you logging "answered prayers?" Is there any time limit involved? How do you know God has personally answered a prayer and it wasn't just the result of something you've done yourself or someone else has done to help you? Are you telling me God has personally answered every single one of your prayers? Let's get some real data here.

Interesting, "tithed" implies you weren't a child Christian but a working teen or adult--or are you making assumptions about your parents' tithes?

How I log prayers:

1) I don't pray often, compared to many, but
2) I've been a Christian for years
3) I pray daily about things, small and large
4) God has come through in a many small and large ways
5) Multiply years by days by prayer = thousands of answered, blessed prayers

In statistics in university, I learned how to assess the significance of something to degrees of standard deviation--prayer works.

 

[Woberts]

In statistics in university, I learned how to assess the significance of something to degrees of standard deviation--prayer works.

Has prayer ever solved medical conditions? And when I'm talking about medical conditions, I'm talking about the ones that can't be cured through conventional means, such as missing limbs.
No misrepresenting what actually happened, as you all seem to love doing.

 

[ecco]

So wasting money is a way to recieve revelation from God? Is there a way where I don't have to give my money to corrupt religious organisations?

Yes, actually there is. Dare you try it?

"God, I don't think you exist, and I'm talking to the air and myself now, but if you do exist, show me testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence you exist, and I will trust Jesus for salvation."

After service one Sunday morning a parishioner asked the preacher...

Reverend Smith, there is a lot of money put into the collection plates every week. How do you decide how much to use for god's work and how much to keep for yourself?​

Reverend Smith answered...

Son, it's all God's will. I take all the money collected and throw it up to God. He takes what he needs and tosses back down what He feels I should keep for myself.​

 

[ecco]

Interesting, "tithed" implies you weren't a child Christian but a working teen or adult--or are you making assumptions about your parents' tithes?

How I log prayers:

1) I don't pray often, compared to many, but
2) I've been a Christian for years
3) I pray daily about things, small and large

You don't pray often, just daily about things small and large.

4) God has come through in a many small and large ways
5) Multiply years by days by prayer = thousands of answered, blessed prayers

In statistics in university, I learned how to assess the significance of something to degrees of standard deviation--prayer works.

Brings to mind an old slogan:
Figures don't lie; Liars figure.

Both teams pray for victory. The winning team thanks God. The losing team waits till next week.

Four people are injured in a car crash. People pray for them. Two survive, two die. People thank God that the two survived. People accept that God needed two more angels in heaven.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not according to the Bible.....there is only truth and falsehood.....right and wrong......good an evil.....life and death....that's it.
We choose what we want to believe for our own reasons. God chooses or rejects us for his own reasons too.

According to the actual reality we live in, human beings have believed in thousands of gods over the course of our history.

You've chosen the Bible. You believe it. Good for you. That doesn't change the fact that millions and millions of other people have (and do) believe(d) in the existence of thousands of other gods and accept(ed) them to be real. There are way more than 2 choices, which is why Pascal's Wager (which you were employing) is basically junk.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How many does it take to convince you...? NONE! There are no missing links and there should be billions of them. Why are they all missing?

There are many transitional fossils in existence. They're not "missing." Missing link is something of a misnomer.

I know many have been presented to you, so why you're sitting there talking as if you think none exist is beyond me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You speak of mutations as if they happen all the time and are beneficial. Beneficial mutations are extremely rare but science acts as if they are common and always produced good results....that is nonsense. I asked you to Google known beneficial mutations in humans....how many did you find that are beneficial and how many of them are seen in the general population and make a real difference to their quality of life?


.

Actually, "science" understands that about 99% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct. So no, science doesn't pretend that all mutations are beneficial.

I wonder how creationist explain away such poor design?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, actually there is. Dare you try it?

"God, I don't think you exist, and I'm talking to the air and myself now, but if you do exist, show me testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence you exist, and I will trust Jesus for salvation."

Just did it.

Nothing happened.

How does that fit with your hypothesis?

I once watched Matt Dillahunty say the same thing on the air on his show, The Atheist Experience. Nothing happened there either.

How does that fit with your hypothesis?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Interesting, "tithed" implies you weren't a child Christian but a working teen or adult--or are you making assumptions about your parents' tithes?

I've been working since I was 10 years old. Always insisted on putting my own money in the tithing plate.

How I log prayers:

1) I don't pray often, compared to many, but
2) I've been a Christian for years
3) I pray daily about things, small and large
4) God has come through in a many small and large ways
5) Multiply years by days by prayer = thousands of answered, blessed prayers

In statistics in university, I learned how to assess the significance of something to degrees of standard deviation--prayer works.

So you haven't logged nor counted them in any real sense. You haven't weighed answered prayers against unanswered prayers. And all the data (it's a huge stretch to call it that, but whatever) comes from you alone.

Sorry but you are not a good scientist. We can see now why you haven't gotten past the hypothesis stage.

 

[ecco]

Actually, "science" understands that about 99% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct. ...
I wonder how creationist explain away such poor design?

God works in mysterious ways?

 

[Jose Fly]

There are many transitional fossils in existence. They're not "missing." Missing link is something of a misnomer.

I know many have been presented to you, so why you're sitting there talking as if you think none exist is beyond me.

Really? You truly have no idea?

 

[Deeje]

I am an atheist.
I have never asked for proof for God.

Perhaps you could show some comments/quotes from atheists asking for proof of God.

You are the spokesman for all atheists here then? Many have asked for proof of God's existence.

You've been around long enough to know that science does not claim to provide proof.

You've been around long enough to know that science accumulates evidence.

The interpretation of the evidence is the problem. They have nothing to base their assumptions on except their imagination. If you have no proof...you have no facts.

Why do you find it necessary to create strawmen?

You can call them strawmen......I call them an inconvenient truth. Nothing has been offered in rebuttal because there is nothing that does not depend on suggestion. Assertions need proof in order to be confirmed. Science cannot prove anything in connection with macro-evolution.

It never ends. Give 'em a link and they'll say gimme another link.

If I ask for "substantiated" evidence and none were forthcoming, then of course I am going to ask for something more...why would I accept something that claims to be truth but has no real evidence? Isn't that what you think I do?

As I said, most people follow the religion of their parents. There are always exceptions.

More than you realize I think. People today do not have the constraints of their grandparents. Social "norms" are not the same. People are more likely to go with the flow. No one wants to appear to be out of step with the mob. Truth is often the casualty.

Why did you feel a need in your 20's to seek a religion? Was there something big missing in your life? Did you need to find answers to questions like why do good people die?

Yes, there was a lot of things missing...like the answers to all the hard questions that most people ask....why are we here?......what is the purpose of our existence?....what does the future hold?....Why do bad things happen to good people?.....and many more. You might think that evolution cancels out those questions because it somehow invalidates them....yet people still wonder because there is this innate need in us to answer those questions with something better than "I dunno"....or "it doesn't matter because this is all there is, so we better just get over it". That will not sit well with a person who has any spirituality.....it only works for those who have lost their spiritual curiosity, or have replaced it with some other belief system. We all have one.

No. Children are not the most spiritual beings on the planet. Children are the most malleable.

• Children are led to believe that, if they behave, a fat man will come down a chimney and leave toys (even if the house has no fireplace).
• Children are led to believe that, if they go to sleep, a fairy will exchange money for their teeth.
• Children are led to believe that, if they look real hard, they will find the colored eggs that a rabbit has hidden.
• Children are led to believe that, if they pray real hard, a magic man in the sky will provide eternal happiness

Indeed...how immoral it is to lie to children! That is why JW's do not participate in that kind of falsehood. You do understand that we are not part of Christendom avoid all those things.....and we understand only too well that when you tell these lies to children, and they inevitably find out that they have been lied to about the existence of these fictitious characters, that God will naturally be included along with Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, eventually. Evolution will then feed that notion as they progress through the school system.....and voila! God is dead.

Being rational is not arrogance. Boldy asserting that ones religion is the only true religion is arrogance.

LOL..so .boldly asserting that something is true when you have no proof is arrogance?......pot meet kettle. My beliefs are very rational to me.....I do not see your views as rational at all. You believe that the universe just "happened" for no apparent reason...that matter just poofed itself into existence......and then life did exactly the same thing. No intelligence to direct any of the complex things that happened out of nowhere by nobody? That is rational?

As I pointed out in my first comment, you had/have a need for something more than reality. So you hope and pray.

When you destroy hope, you take away the only thing that keeps some people functioning. Without hope, someone who is watching their child succumb to a terminal illness can be comforted by what? "Sorry but you'll just have to get over it"?
Without hope, how does anyone lose their significant other and come to terms with the permanence of that situation? Does taking hope away make you feel better? It doesn't make them feel better....so why do atheists seem so bent on killing off God and all the hope that is tied up with him? Does that somehow help to justify your own lack of hope?

There is a difference between reading and talking/confiding. Earlier you stated:
I talk to God all day about a lot of things, just as I would confide in a close friend.

You have obviously never had a relationship with God. I talk to him about all my concerns...I thank him for the beautiful things I see around me....I consult him about decisions I have to make....you have no idea how God communicates with me. I doubt you ever will. That is your loss I'm afraid.

Coincidences happen all the time. Again, it seems you need to find something beyond reality.

Again, you assume to know....you know nothing but you assume a lot....atheists have to have that quality or else they could not accept the unsubstantiated suggestions of science so readily.

Your reality is not my reality.

 

[Deeje]

According to the actual reality we live in, human beings have believed in thousands of gods over the course of our history.

None of those gods existed before mine, according to the Bible. They were all created by the pretender......the other "god" that atheist don't believe exists. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

There are many transitional fossils in existence. They're not "missing." Missing link is something of a misnomer.

I know many have been presented to you, so why you're sitting there talking as if you think none exist is beyond me.

Again, I need substantiated evidence for these transitional fossils.....a suggestion is not substantive enough for me. I am surprised that they are sufficient for you when you claim that science is so "evidence" based. But interpretation of evidence by biased individuals with a pet theory to uphold does not inspire me with confidence as to their conclusions being accurate.....

Actually, "science" understands that about 99% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct. So no, science doesn't pretend that all mutations are beneficial.

How does science know this? 99% of all species have become extinct???.....substantiated evidence for this is....?

I wonder how creationist explain away such poor design?

Things that don't fit in with an overall theme are not evidence of poor design...it is what is commonly seen in the normal behavior of all creative individuals.
Getting rid of the idea of 'a big wizard in the sky', helps us to appreciate how very like the Creator we actually are. As an artist myself, I can vouch for the fact that I have had many productions that just did not live up to my own expectations and ended up on the scrap heap, or were reworked. Others have simply lived out their shelf life and needed to be replaced with something that worked better later on.

The creative days were not 24 hour periods either....so there was plenty of time for the Creator to do whatever he wished in the time he allotted. Tweaking is what we see in the universe and in nature.

The very fact that each creative period ended with God pronouncing everything that he had accomplished in that timeframe as "good" (and the last "day" as "very good").....have you ever wondered why he closed each period with a declaration of his satisfaction? Each period may have included things that may have ended up being redundant in the finished product. It was a creative project undertaken by an amazing Being with incredible power and creative ability in his chosen medium.

That's the way I see the Creator.

 

[Bear Wild]

The different species are still of the same taxonomic family. Nothing in their genetics will create a new family. They will only ever be of the same family. This is what science can know for sure because that is what the evidence says.



Are you sure you want to go there? This is a conversation I have had with quite a few who thought I needed educating.....I already know what science teaches....I simply don't agree because, just as I cannot produce proof for the existence of the Creator, you cannot produce proof that macro-evolution ever happened. Science has evidence for adaptation....nothing more.



You speak of mutations as if they happen all the time and are beneficial. Beneficial mutations are extremely rare but science acts as if they are common and always produced good results....that is nonsense. I asked you to Google known beneficial mutations in humans....how many did you find that are beneficial and how many of them are seen in the general population and make a real difference to their quality of life?

The mechanism Darwin didn't understand was adaptation and it never....I repeat, NEVER leads to a new taxonomic family. It only leads to variety within a family of creatures. Do you understand what that means? Darwin saw varieties of finches, tortoises and iguanas....but they had simply adapted to a different environment. They were not becoming something else....were they?



Barriers do exist that any scientist knows about.
When you cross a horse with a donkey, you get a mule; an animal that provided the best of both breeds; both are equines, but you can't cross a mule with a mule because the offspring are sterile. There is your barrier.
Tigers and lions have also been crossed but again, the offspring are invariably sterile. That is the end of the genetic line.

Both of these crosses are forced by man, not something that would happen in nature. All species are programmed to mate only with their own "kind". Isn't that what nature tells you? In vast herds of African animals that are known to frequent the same habitats, you will never see cross breeding because they will only ever mate and produce copies of themselves. In vast oceans, we see the same thing. Species of fish are separated and distinct, just the same as birds and land animals are. Nature does not produce outside of its family.



Yes...differentiation within one taxonomic family. The fact that they cannot interbreed makes no difference to the taxonomy.



It wouldn't matter how much time you gave it. The genetics are set. Adaptation will not change it.



Actually, our "problem" comes in the interpretation of very scant evidence. Fossils are not a good source of information because they don't tell any story by themselves....they need scientists to put words in their mouths. They give no evidence apart from what science assumes to be true....



All science can do is produce is a range of similar looking creatures and assume that the creatures in their imagined line of decent are related. Do you understand that it is all based on what they think "might have" or "could have" happened. There is no actual proof for any of their suggestions.

They have some nice diagrams and computer graphics but that is no substitute for proven facts.



I will continue if you wish, but seriously you have presented nothing that I have not seen before....

Adaptation does not lead to new taxonomic families. Mutations creating variation with different success for reproduction driven by natural selection leads to the changes that do lead to changes in a species. If separation between two population prevents interbreeding then the changes can become so great that they no longer resemble each other. Extend that over the time the earth has been present and those seemingly slow small changes create vast differences.

Discounting fossils is to ignore the clear evidence showing evidence of change over time when understood with geologic processes. I understand why creationists desperately what to ignore the evidence because it does not match with the creation story. That's why they spend so much time trying to discredit it but in the end the evidence is clear.

 

[Deeje]

Mutations creating variation with different success for reproduction driven by natural selection leads to the changes that do lead to changes in a species.

Ah "mutations"! You mean like these....

We have already established that beneficial mutations are extremely rare and that deleterious ones account for many like those pictured above.
Neutral mutations (the most common) do not affect the organism one way or the other. So where is "foundation of evolution"? You have no foundation.

We have also established that adaptation does not alter taxonomy. So please demonstrate to me how single celled organisms used mutations to eventually become all the lifeforms we have seen on this planet. Please provide the substantiated evidence for your position.

If separation between two population prevents interbreeding then the changes can become so great that they no longer resemble each other.

Here are Darwin's finches....what you suggest is not what Darwin saw......

They were all clearly still finches.

Still iguanas.....adapted to a marine environment. You have no real evidence for what science is suggesting.

You do understand the difference between fact and suggestion, don't you?

Extend that over the time the earth has been present and those seemingly slow small changes create vast differences.

Life on earth is not as old as the earth itself...lets be clear about that.

"There are all sorts of ways to reconstruct the history of life on Earth. Pinning down when specific events occurred is often tricky, though. For this, biologists depend mainly on dating the rocks in which fossils are found, and by looking at the “molecular clocks” in the DNA of living organisms.

There are problems with each of these methods. The fossil record is like a movie with most of the frames cut out. Because it is so incomplete, it can be difficult to establish exactly when particular evolutionary changes happened.

Modern genetics allows scientists to measure how different species are from each other at a molecular level, and thus to estimate how much time has passed since a single lineage split into different species. Confounding factors rack up for species that are very distantly related, making the earlier dates more uncertain.

These difficulties mean that the dates in the timeline should be taken as approximate. As a general rule, they become more uncertain the further back along the geological timescale we look. Dates that are very uncertain are marked with a question mark."

Timeline: The evolution of life

Earth is supposedly 4.54 billion years old, with an error range of 50 million years. The error range is a mere 50 million years.....not terribly exact, is it?

Discounting fossils is to ignore the clear evidence showing evidence of change over time when understood with geologic processes. I understand why creationists desperately what to ignore the evidence because it does not match with the creation story. That's why they spend so much time trying to discredit it but in the end the evidence is clear.

Then you understand only what you want to understand. Fossils tell no story on their own.....they speak only what the scientists want them to say. They are talented ventriloquists IMO.

In the end....the evidence is very clear.....scientist are full of suggestions but are really short on substantiated evidence. Why wouldn't I want to tell the truth about that?

 

[Bear Wild]

Ah "mutations"! You mean like these....

We have already established that beneficial mutations are extremely rare and that deleterious ones account for many like those pictured above.
Neutral mutations (the most common) do not affect the organism one way or the other. So where is "foundation of evolution"? You have no foundation.

We have also established that adaptation does not alter taxonomy. So please demonstrate to me how single celled organisms used mutations to eventually become all the lifeforms we have seen on this planet. Please provide the substantiated evidence for your position.



Here are Darwin's finches....what you suggest is not what Darwin saw......

They were all clearly still finches.

Still iguanas.....adapted to a marine environment. You have no real evidence for what science is suggesting.

You do understand the difference between fact and suggestion, don't you?



Life on earth is not as old as the earth itself...lets be clear about that.

"There are all sorts of ways to reconstruct the history of life on Earth. Pinning down when specific events occurred is often tricky, though. For this, biologists depend mainly on dating the rocks in which fossils are found, and by looking at the “molecular clocks” in the DNA of living organisms.

There are problems with each of these methods. The fossil record is like a movie with most of the frames cut out. Because it is so incomplete, it can be difficult to establish exactly when particular evolutionary changes happened.

Modern genetics allows scientists to measure how different species are from each other at a molecular level, and thus to estimate how much time has passed since a single lineage split into different species. Confounding factors rack up for species that are very distantly related, making the earlier dates more uncertain.

These difficulties mean that the dates in the timeline should be taken as approximate. As a general rule, they become more uncertain the further back along the geological timescale we look. Dates that are very uncertain are marked with a question mark."

Timeline: The evolution of life

Earth is supposedly 4.54 billion years old, with an error range of 50 million years. The error range is a mere 50 million years.....not terribly exact, is it?



Then you understand only what you want to understand. Fossils tell no story on their own.....they speak only what the scientists want them to say. They are talented ventriloquists IMO.

In the end....the evidence is very clear.....scientist are full of suggestions but are really short on substantiated evidence. Why wouldn't I want to tell the truth about that?

So you are using birth defects to claim mutations? We clearly need to discuss mutations more carefully. You are also wrong that it was mutations causing the two heads. The reality is that most mutations are neutral. Much smaller numbers are deleterious or beneficial and that depends on the environment in which an organism lives.
The finches are still finches yes but they are not the same. Darwin's point on the finches was to show how natural selection could select for different features in different environments giving him the understanding of the mechanism. More major changes take much greater time frames which the age of the Earth has provided. I hope you at least can understand that natural selection occurs and that is a good start. Natural selection is a fact. Variation in species is a fact. Genetic mutations is a fact whether for the benefit or to the harm. See we are identifying facts of evolution. We are making progress. Slow but still progress.
Fossil evidence is very hard to come by since fossilization is uncommon but it does happen so we have a record. To ignore the fossil record completely is to intentionally ignore the facts because you know that they go against what you want to believe. Pinning down exact dates is not easy but the approximations are clearly well established especially when coordinated with the stratification layer of geologic formations. The fossils are real and they tell a real story not a myth.
To demand things to be proven the way you propose is to demand ignorance of the facts we have. But there is much more to learn and I am happy to work with you.

 

[Deeje]

So you are using birth defects to claim mutations?

Some birth defects are caused by chromosomal abnormalities, like Downs syndrome. Genetically inherited diseases are passed on by an afflicted parent. All can be technically classified as birth defects.

We clearly need to discuss mutations more carefully. You are also wrong that it was mutations causing the two heads.

Conjoined twins are usually the cause of two heads, but there is still so much that medical science doesn't know about the process. It is still under study...the ability to conceive non- identical twins can be inherited. What do you think you need to teach me?

The reality is that most mutations are neutral. Much smaller numbers are deleterious or beneficial and that depends on the environment in which an organism lives.

To suggest that an extremely rare occurrence forms the foundation of a belief where they have to have occurred millions of times for each species, is ridiculous. You have more faith in science than I have in God....and with way less real evidence.

The finches are still finches yes but they are not the same. Darwin's point on the finches was to show how natural selection could select for different features in different environments giving him the understanding of the mechanism.

The mechanism was adaptation. Adaptation does not explain macro-evolution because it has never been observed. It is a suggestion. Never proven. OK?

More major changes take much greater time frames which the age of the Earth has provided.

What has the age of the earth got to do with anything? No changes have ever been observed that even suggest that one species can morph into another, no matter how much time you throw at it.

I hope you at least can understand that natural selection occurs and that is a good start. Natural selection is a fact. Variation in species is a fact. Genetic mutations is a fact whether for the benefit or to the harm. See we are identifying facts of evolution. We are making progress. Slow but still progress.

Usually, natural selection means that creatures naturally select the best specimens for mating. In birds, the females are usually very fussy about who will father their offspring. Wild land animals usually have a sire who needs to prove himself stronger than his rivals. What's to understand?
Variations within species never lead to a change in species. Beneficial genetic mutations are a very poor basis for belief in evolution because they hardly ever happen. So why are you pushing these things like we never discussed how unlikely they are to have ever taken place.....seriously?

Fossil evidence is very hard to come by since fossilization is uncommon but it does happen so we have a record. To ignore the fossil record completely is to intentionally ignore the facts because you know that they go against what you want to believe.

The fossil record is open to bias and misinterpretation. Conclusions are often seen to force facts.
Google the reliability of the fossil record.

The fossils are real and they tell a real story not a myth.

Whose story? They tell no story of their own. Scientists have to give them a voice. How many times do you need to hear this?

To demand things to be proven the way you propose is to demand ignorance of the facts we have. But there is much more to learn and I am happy to work with you.

I demand proof from people who claim that they have evidence that proves that they are right.....I have examined the evidence and found that it is riddled with holes....I reject it. What more do you need to know? You are hardly dazzling me with science. I am not a high school kid you know.

 

[ecco]

I am an atheist.
I have never asked for proof for God.

Perhaps you could show some comments/quotes from atheists asking for proof of God.

You are the spokesman for all atheists here then? Many have asked for proof of God's existence.

No, I am not claiming to be a spokesman. I gave you my own personal views. I then challenged you to "show some comments/quotes from atheists asking for proof of God".

You responded with "many", but did not actually show any. So all we have is your unsupported assertion that "Many have asked for proof of God's existence".

The interpretation of the evidence is the problem. They have nothing to base their assumptions on except their imagination. If you have no proof...you have no facts.

As I stated previously...

You've been around long enough to know that science does not claim to provide proof.
You've been around long enough to know that science accumulates evidence.

In typical fashion, you demand proof from others for their comments, but, when asked, you cannot and do not provide any supporting evidence for your assertions.

It's clear why "Thou shalt not be a hypocrite" is not one of the Ten Commandments. Even back then they knew it would be problematic.

You can call them strawmen......I call them an inconvenient truth. Nothing has been offered in rebuttal because there is nothing that does not depend on suggestion. Assertions need proof in order to be confirmed. Science cannot prove anything in connection with macro-evolution.

If you continue to call for "proof" you are indeed trying to set up strawmen. You ask for proof but you dismiss all evidence.

If I ask for "substantiated" evidence and none were forthcoming, then of course I am going to ask for something more...why would I accept something that claims to be truth but has no real evidence? Isn't that what you think I do?

I don't expect you to accept any evidence that conflicts with your deeply ingrained religious beliefs.

More than you realize I think. People today do not have the constraints of their grandparents. Social "norms" are not the same. People are more likely to go with the flow. No one wants to appear to be out of step with the mob. Truth is often the casualty.

Who is the "mob"? Is it the tens of thousands of scientists, in multiple scientific specialities, who have studied and researched and learned, or is it religious cults that continue to use one of hundreds of thousand-year-old myths?

Yes, there was a lot of things missing...like the answers to all the hard questions that most people ask....why are we here?......what is the purpose of our existence?....what does the future hold?....Why do bad things happen to good people?.....and many more.

Those are religious/philosophical questions, not scientific questions. You base your acceptance of science on religion/philosophy. You dismiss science where it conflicts with your religious/philosophical concepts. The worst is that you don't see anything wrong with that.

You might think that evolution cancels out those questions because it somehow invalidates them....yet people still wonder because there is this innate need in us to answer those questions with something better than "I dunno"....or "it doesn't matter because this is all there is, so we better just get over it".

It's always been "GodDitIt" or "I dunno, but we'll work at finding out".
GodDidIt has never been the right answer. GodDidIt does nothing to advance science. Fortunately, over the centuries, some men set aside GodDidIt and pursued "I dunno, but we'll work at finding out". Otherwise, we would still be living like the people who wrote the OT. People with no knowledge of diseases or causes of plagues.

Indeed...how immoral it is to lie to children! That is why JW's do not participate in that kind of falsehood. You do understand that we are not part of Christendom avoid all those things.....and we understand only too well that when you tell these lies to children, and they inevitably find out that they have been lied to about the existence of these fictitious characters, that God will naturally be included along with Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, eventually. Evolution will then feed that notion as they progress through the school system.....and voila! God is dead.

OK You don't celebrate Christmas or Easter. One reason is that Christ's birthday is not mentioned in the Bible. Well, the origins of humans is also not written in the books of Jesus. The origins of humans is written about in the old Jewish writings that some men decided to include in Christian religious doctrine. If Marcion had prevailed, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

LOL..so .boldly asserting that something is true when you have no proof is arrogance?......pot meet kettle. My beliefs are very rational to me.....I do not see your views as rational at all. You believe that the universe just "happened" for no apparent reason...that matter just poofed itself into existence......and then life did exactly the same thing. No intelligence to direct any of the complex things that happened out of nowhere by nobody? That is rational?

When you can rephrase that without resorting to the word "proof" then we can discuss it.

When you destroy hope, you take away the only thing that keeps some people functioning. Without hope, someone who is watching their child succumb to a terminal illness can be comforted by what? "Sorry but you'll just have to get over it"?

And you also comfort children whose siblings succumb to a terminal illness with the same hopeful stories.

Above you stated "Indeed...how immoral it is to lie to children! That is why JW's do not participate in that kind of falsehood. "

You have no proof of anything that happens after death. You have no evidence of anything that happens after death.

What you use to comfort people is based on hope and speculation.

What happened to your insistence for "proof"?

Without hope, how does anyone lose their significant other and come to terms with the permanence of that situation? Does taking hope away make you feel better? It doesn't make them feel better....so why do atheists seem so bent on killing off God and all the hope that is tied up with him? Does that somehow help to justify your own lack of hope?

I have come to terms with the lose of a significant other. I didn't have any need to turn to nonsense in order to accept reality. Serious illnesses, accidents, deaths are part of life.

You have obviously never had a relationship with God. I talk to him about all my concerns...I thank him for the beautiful things I see around me....I consult him about decisions I have to make....you have no idea how God communicates with me. I doubt you ever will. That is your loss I'm afraid.

It is no loss at all. I don't need to talk to or listen to mythological make-believe creatures. I can appreciate nature without the need to attribute it to an omni-all entity. I use my intelligence and knowledge to make decisions, not voices in my head.

Again, you assume to know....you know nothing but you assume a lot....atheists have to have that quality or else they could not accept the unsubstantiated suggestions of science so readily.

Again, you assume to know....you know nothing but you assume a lot....theists in general and JWs in particular have to have that quality or else they could not accept the unsubstantiated suggestions of a cult religion so readily.

Your reality is not my reality.

Your reality is not the reality of the vast majority of humans.

 

[ecco]

Ah "mutations"! You mean like these....

Since you do not believe in science, you must accept that these pictures are evidence of God's handiwork.



Also, you made it clear that you do not understand the cause of errors during gestation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The interpretation of the evidence is the problem.

Agreed. You look at pretty flowers and colorful frogs and interpret that as evidence that a god exists, and that it is the one you chose. That's an improper evaluation of that evidence. One must remain agnostic about gods until we have a way of ruling them in or out. The evidence doesn't help us decide between naturalistic and supernaturalistic alternatives, yet you have eliminated the naturalisitic explanations out of hand anyway. That's a logical error.

Furthermore, our scientific theories are doing fine without gods in them, the addition of which would add nothing to their usefulness. So, we have no need of that hypothesis at this time, since the unanswered questions of origins of the universe and the life in it have naturalistic possibilities for answers - the multiverse and undirected abiogenesis.

If you have no proof...you have no facts.

Why do you keep repeating that? You are wrong about having no facts - I wonder if you know what a fact is - and you are wrong about proof being required for justifiable belief. Usefulness is the criterion. If an idea can be used to successfully predict and at times control outcomes, it means that we have evaluated the relevant evidence correctly. We're going to keep and use useful ideas, and reject the ones that can't be used.

Furthermore, you are more than happy to accept ideas without proof or fact. Faith is all you need. So why the double standard?

Forget proof. It's unnecessary.

Instrumentalism is the idea that statements or hypotheses may be used as tools for useful prediction without reference to their possible truth or falsity.

An idea can be called empirically adequate if past, present, and future observations conforms with its predictions.

Fallibilism is the principle that propositions concerning empirical knowledge can be accepted even though they cannot be proved with certainty.

You've been ducking my question of why we would trade in a theory that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture for an idea like creationism that can do none of that?

Can we assume that your silence is because you know that there is no good answer - no adequate reason to do that? You're usually pretty quick to address the issues that you think you can adequately address.