Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Sapiens]

First, I have to assume this is the best dialog I can have with you since you are at great disadvantage.

One needs to have faith in order to have a worldview.

False.

In order to be an atheist, one has to have faith there is no God.

Also false.

Wrong, but whatever. Atheist scientists believe aliens exist based on faith.

Another error..

They think the vastness of the universe and their powerful, multi-million dollar telescopes and equipment will find them.

Another error..

I already pointed this out with links to news articles and what Carl Sagan did.

Carl Sagan, back in the 1960s, said that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life. Thus the probability of other life in the universe approached 1.0 as a limit.

But the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), failed to detect any. What happened? For one thing, our calculation of the odds changed as Sagan's two parameters grew to several hundred and there was something else, rather telling, that even SETI proponents today still fail to acknowledge: technology marches on and (at least on our planet) we have almost entirely shifted from iwide-bandwidth analog to highly compressed digital transmissions. Other civilizations would probably undergo the same transition, SETI is only going to find civilizations in the tiny slice of time between discovering radio and going digital. Another problem is that unfocused electromagnetic radiation travels outward in a spherical pattern. This requires invoking the inverse square law. By the time a signal from Earth reaches Alpha Centauri, (4.37 light years), its power has dropped to less than 1/74,000,000,000th. If you wanted to receive an alien signal, the transmitter would need to be focused and directed straight at us. This would only happen if the aliens were aware of us and wanted to communicate, and were very patient. SETI's failure was a failure of human optimism and technology prediction, not of the still astronomical odds in favor of alien life existing.

They also believe mutations are the way of the future and will give us longer life when the opposite seems more likely.

Yes we owe all the we are to the raw material of mutation refined by the process of natural selection. But lifespan is a character that was selected for and that responded to epigentic influences:

Epigenetic mechanisms traditionally have been studied in the domains of development and disease, but they may also play important roles in ecological and evolutionary processes. In this article, we revisit historical as well as recent studies that indicate significant impacts of epigenetic processes on evolution. Our main focus is DNA methylation, which is a prevalent chemical modification of genomic DNA. First, it has been long known that DNA methylation acts as a major mutational facilitator in animal genomes and influences nucleotide compositions of genomes. More recently, genome-wide analyses have demonstrated that the current levels of DNA methylation can be predicted from the evolutionary signatures of DNA methylation, indicating that these two processes are intimately correlated. Indeed, the recent explosive growth in the knowledge of genomic DNA methylation in wide-ranging taxa has revealed that patterns of DNA methylation are surprisingly conserved across deep phylogenies. Interestingly, comparative analyses of humans and closely related primate species show that genomic regions that do show evolutionary divergence of DNA methylation are enriched for developmental and tissue specializations. A key question is how epigenetic patterns transmit between generations and impact evolutionary dynamics. On the one hand, some studies report direct transmissions of epigenetic features to the next generation. On the other hand, it is becoming clear that genomic sequence variants exist that encode and presumably regulate distinctive epigenetic patterns. For instance, numerous single-nucleotide polymorphisms that affect DNA-methylation patterns have been discovered in human populations. These studies begin to unveil a dynamic interplay between genomic and epigenomic factors across long and short evolutionary timescales.
Epigenetics and Evolution
. Mendizabal, T. E. Keller, J. Zeng and Soojin V. Yi, Oxford Journals Volume 54, Issue 1 Pp. 31-42.

Atheism leads to communism. This is a fact.

No it is not, that is faulty reasoning.

It also led to mass murder.

Again, you exhibit a logical fallacy.

The biggest mass murderer of them all was Mao Zedong and his Great Leap Forward in 1958. It ended up killing at least 45 million people.

Yet, China did rise and today they are the #2 nation in terms of money and national wealth. If one includes accumulated borrowing and and assets of the federal and state governments, then the US is not #1 anymore and China rises to the top.

OK, we get it, you suscribe to "yellow peril syndrome."

And what do they think about the ToE? They think it's the greatest truth in the world and will use it to exploit and kill more people in order to remain #1 in my opinion.

It is a truth, but it is not "exploitable" in the way you describe.

They will want to lead the world in mutations. Expect to see horrible experiments and food sources being experimented with. The difference between the US and China is we have "In God We Trust" on our money and we are still a nation of believers.

No, the difference between the US and China is that we use, per capita, a much higher proportion of the world's resources than they currently do and they'd like to (at least) catch up. If we are all to survive we must finds ways to stop the consumption race, but that idea appears unfair to China, not to mention India, Africa, etc.

 

[Sapiens]

Interesting choice of words, Sapiens. "It is not opinion that DAMNS you, it is that you are not entitled to your own facts."

You still do not understand facts, Sapiens. If something is a fact or a statement is a fact, then we can all use it. For example, Noah was warned not to eat meat that still had blood in it. At the time, they were not aware of diseases and sickness that could be caused from blood. Today, we still have to be careful in handling raw meat that still has blood in it. We have advanced more, but care still has to be taken. We wear plastic or latex gloves or wash our hands after its handling. We base how raw meat is cooked on the temperature inside and are more careful in how the animal was raised and keep logs from birth, feed and slaughter. Today, we can eat rare meat with the blood taken out. Meat with blood taken out may look blood rare, but it's not blood. One can hunt wild game or fish, but you would have to take heed of the facts about draining the blood and of air and water pollution. The wild game or fish could be unfit for consumption. God said Satan is the prince of the air, i.e. atmosphere, and there are prophecies based on the water turning blood red. Water can turn red from natural and man-made (pollution) causes. The one that turns red from the supernatural will signify the end times. The first two you accept as fact, but the last is the one only believers accept.

There you go again, expressing your own opinions and demanding your own facts.

There is little or no blood in meat. What you remove by washing, soaking, salting and then washing again, is not blood but myoglobin, a protein that serves as an "oxygen battery" in muscle tissue (Technically, myoglobin is a cytoplasmic hemoprotein, expressed solely in cardiac myocytes and oxidative skeletal muscle fibers, that reversibly binds O2 by its heme residue, a porphyrin ring:iron ion complex).

Your bible is one again shown to be scientifically deficient and has sent you on a fools' errand.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

First, I have to assume this is the best dialog I can have with you since you are at great disadvantage.

And you suspect yourself of being at some great advantage?

One needs to have faith in order to have a worldview.

Nope. Although everyone believes things without evidence, faith is something altogether different, and a worldview depends on experience, inclination, and a whole lot of other things. Faith may or may not be included, but it is certainly not necessary. You don't require faith to know whether or not you like broccoli.

In order to be an atheist, one has to have faith there is no God. Wrong, but whatever.

No, you are wrong. No such faith is required. Faith is required for belief. Nothing at all is required for disbelief. Try to imagine all of the things that you don't believe (like there's a billion dollars hidden under your bed) and see if they require "faith." They don't.

Atheist scientists believe aliens exist based on faith.

No, they don't. They accept that there is very likely other life in the universe because all of the science they know suggests that is likely to be true. They do not believe in "aliens," or little green men, or anything else. They are open to the possibility (extremely likely) that there is life. They have no idea what it might be like, nor do they typically pretend that they do. That's the job of sci-fi writers.

They think the vastness of the universe and their powerful, multi-million dollar telescopes and equipment will find them.

Wrong again. They think the search is worth the effort, but do not know what they will find. This is in line with the spirit of inquiry that defines the science-minded, and drives the religious (you must believe no matter what the evidence says) crazy. A short drive, by the way.

I already pointed this out with links to news articles and what Carl Sagan did.

What did Carl Sagan do? A brain 20 times your size, and not a single claim that wasn't grounded in reason. So what are you accusing him of?

They also believe mutations are the way of the future and will give us longer life when the opposite seems more likely.

A 100% misunderstanding of evolution. Really, can you not do better than this?

Atheism leads to communism. This is a fact.

Complete and utter rubbish. Make a case. Show us the studies. I am an atheist, and I am decidedly not a communist. Most of the people I know are atheists, and none of the people I know are communists. Do you actually have any information, or do you just like making stuff up in the hope that it sticks?

It also led to mass murder. The biggest mass murderer of them all was Mao Zedong and his Great Leap Forward in 1958. It ended up killing at least 45 million people.

Someday, if you are extremely lucky (and willing to do a little more work than you appear to have done to date), you might realize that ideologies like Communism, Nazism, Fascism and others are the precise mirror equivalent of religion, and are promulgated with same religious zeal that every other religious ideology is. Atheism does nothing of the kind, and is in fact not in the slightest interested in whether you keep licking God's Idol or not. We don't care.

As for the rest, you have no idea as usual so we'll can conclude this dialog ha ha.

And you have less idea, and so might have been wise to conclude earlier -- ha ha.

 

[gnostic]

What does atheism back up? Communism. The largest group of communists in the world are in China. Which country has the largest group of evolutionists in the world? I'll stop here until you can catch up.

What a lot of BS strawman?

You are terribly ignorant and dishonest, to make such crap of statements.

I am unaware of a single atheist member being of communist China.

Can you name a single RF member, who is both atheist and a communist from China?

I am Chinese, but I am neither a communist, not an atheist. Politically, I am moderate and I preferred democratic system, but even in such a system, it isn't perfect.

I do have a few relatives who are atheists, but not a single one of them are communists. Most of my relatives have some sort of religions they followed: some are Christians, some of them are Taoists, others are Buddhists. Most of relatives, including those who are atheists, don't accept evolution only because most of their education and works involved business and accounting; they are not anti-evolution...no, they simply don't think evolution is relevant in their day-to-day lives.

And beside this, you are ignoring a number of theists at RF, who do accept evolution as an explanation for biodiversity.

So you are not only using strawman, you are generalising in the most dishonest fashion.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You're taking my statement out of context. Atheists will not see God because they do not have faith in God.

From KCA, we know that God is timeless and spaceless. Can you imagine such a being existing?

Here is a video that has God in it. Do you see Him? EDIT: I'm not referring to pareidolia where one sees a face in inanimate objects.

Listen to me...

Spiritually, psychologically, culturally, personally... If you convince yourself of the value of anything it will have an impact on your life. If you make a conscious decision to choose milk as your favorite drink, even if you currently hate milk, then over time you will grow to like milk. You can then imbue your new like and want of milk with certain intangible qualities, believing that milk not only provides much needed calcium to your diet but that it can heal stomach ulcers and ease other internal ailments simply by coating your core with its life-giving nectar... You could then spend years coming to some personal conclusions about other mythologies surrounding the milk industry, perhaps imagining that only happy free-range cattle are providing the milk that you drink. You may think up awesome stories about where it comes from, day-dreaming about the process of lactation. You can believe really neat things about how it gets to your fridge every morning, or about why your packaging company is the best packing company.

All of these things can, as you've put it, certainly give meaning and value to your life and to your daily choices. You'll know that you can always rely on milk to be there when you're feeling down, or to help you celebrate when things are going right. You may go through periods where you begin to doubt some of the deeper beliefs that you have about milk, but I'd encourage you not to lose faith, because you did not come to new faith in milk lightly... I promise you, Milk will always be there, never leaving you or forsaking you, so long as you continue to have faith in milk...

The Bible is not wrong in it's suggestion that maintaining faith can be a powerful thing. It's a psychological realization that many religions and philosophers, the world over, have recognized. That is the power of faith. It is undisputed. But it is not evidence for your particular iteration of god any more than it is evidence for the magic healing powers of almighty milk.

I have not taken anything that you have said out of context. You simply do not like the fact that these videos and arguments are logically fallible suggestions.
They may very well be sincere - and that's great. I don't have a problem with that. But if you are going to open them up as truth claims, then we need to have a truth conversation.
They are not delving into the reasons behind why you see them as valid arguments for non-believers. (This fault of logic is not just true of you - it's true of most believers. Your last video makes the same mistake that you're making, which the same mistake that Jason Lisle makes) Nowhere in these arguments and videos can you find evidence for a god... What you find is evidence for the psychological reasons behind WHY we believe in god, among other things.

 

[james bond]

There you go again, expressing your own opinions and demanding your own facts.

There is little or no blood in meat. What you remove by washing, soaking, salting and then washing again, is not blood but myoglobin, a protein that serves as an "oxygen battery" in muscle tissue (Technically, myoglobin is a cytoplasmic hemoprotein, expressed solely in cardiac myocytes and oxidative skeletal muscle fibers, that reversibly binds O2 by its heme residue, a porphyrin ring:iron ion complex).

Your bible is one again shown to be scientifically deficient and has sent you on a fools' errand.

Last point first. The Bible is scientifically sound. Your analysis is deficient.

The point is we want to drain the blood from that which is slaughtered so there are methods to dress it and hang it. Once the slaughtered meat is prepared, then we can further treat it as you stated. I said that myoglobin is okay to eat such as in blood rare meat provided meat has been slaughtered and prepared properly. The blood is already gone.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Last point first. The Bible is scientifically sound. Your analysis is deficient.

The point is we want to drain the blood from that which is slaughtered so there are methods to dress it and hang it. Once the slaughtered meat is prepared, then we can further treat it as you stated. I said that myoglobin is okay to eat such as in blood rare meat provided meat has been slaughtered and prepared properly. The blood is already gone.

Knowledge is not your strong suit, then....

 

[james bond]

And you suspect yourself of being at some great advantage?

Nope. Although everyone believes things without evidence, faith is something altogether different, and a worldview depends on experience, inclination, and a whole lot of other things. Faith may or may not be included, but it is certainly not necessary. You don't require faith to know whether or not you like broccoli.

No, you are wrong. No such faith is required. Faith is required for belief. Nothing at all is required for disbelief. Try to imagine all of the things that you don't believe (like there's a billion dollars hidden under your bed) and see if they require "faith." They don't.

No, they don't. They accept that there is very likely other life in the universe because all of the science they know suggests that is likely to be true. They do not believe in "aliens," or little green men, or anything else. They are open to the possibility (extremely likely) that there is life. They have no idea what it might be like, nor do they typically pretend that they do. That's the job of sci-fi writers.

Wrong again. They think the search is worth the effort, but do not know what they will find. This is in line with the spirit of inquiry that defines the science-minded, and drives the religious (you must believe no matter what the evidence says) crazy. A short drive, by the way.

What did Carl Sagan do? A brain 20 times your size, and not a single claim that wasn't grounded in reason. So what are you accusing him of?

A 100% misunderstanding of evolution. Really, can you not do better than this?

Complete and utter rubbish. Make a case. Show us the studies. I am an atheist, and I am decidedly not a communist. Most of the people I know are atheists, and none of the people I know are communists. Do you actually have any information, or do you just like making stuff up in the hope that it sticks?

Someday, if you are extremely lucky (and willing to do a little more work than you appear to have done to date), you might realize that ideologies like Communism, Nazism, Fascism and others are the precise mirror equivalent of religion, and are promulgated with same religious zeal that every other religious ideology is. Atheism does nothing of the kind, and is in fact not in the slightest interested in whether you keep licking God's Idol or not. We don't care.

And you have less idea, and so might have been wise to conclude earlier -- ha ha.

The first point is addressed to Mestemia who is at disadvantage to most.

We're not talking about broccoli, but worldview. And faith is not just for the religious, but the non-religious, too. One definition of faith is "strong belief or trust in someone or something." One has to have faith that there is no god or a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being. It makes atheism a religion according to US laws.

I won't argue semantics. It is a waste of time.

It is not extremely likely based on logic due to the vastness of the universe. By the same logic, we could find God due to the vastness of the universe (however He's already here). Today, we have the fine-tuning theory from creation scientists.

It was not worth wasting taxpayer money sending a time capsule for the aliens in two satellites which Sagan did.

Carl Sagan was an atheist scientist. He thought we could create life through the Urey-Miller experiment and believed in aliens when there was no evidence whatsoever. Today, we have the fine-tuning theory from creation scientists.

Something better than trusting mutations? Don't trust atheist scientists who genetically modify products. Avoid GM food products. Try to eat organic, more vegetables and less meat. If you eat meat, then eat that which has raised for slaughter in an open environment and slaughtered humanely. If you understand evolution, then explain it in a few sentences so we can all understand. Many of the evos here cannot do that.

Just because you are not is an insignificant sample size. Oy vey. Have you not heard of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin? They wrote the book on it -- https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm ; https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm . Today, we have the New Atheism movement which is a much more aggressive and militant stance against religion. It advocates state atheism. I'll discuss atheism and China in another thread.

As for the rest of your statements, it's just opinion and much ignorance about your atheist religion.

 

[james bond]

What a lot of BS strawman?

You are terribly ignorant and dishonest, to make such crap of statements.

I am unaware of a single atheist member being of communist China.

Can you name a single RF member, who is both atheist and a communist from China?

I am Chinese, but I am neither a communist, not an atheist. Politically, I am moderate and I preferred democratic system, but even in such a system, it isn't perfect.

I do have a few relatives who are atheists, but not a single one of them are communists. Most of my relatives have some sort of religions they followed: some are Christians, some of them are Taoists, others are Buddhists. Most of relatives, including those who are atheists, don't accept evolution only because most of their education and works involved business and accounting; they are not anti-evolution...no, they simply don't think evolution is relevant in their day-to-day lives.

And beside this, you are ignoring a number of theists at RF, who do accept evolution as an explanation for biodiversity.

So you are not only using strawman, you are generalising in the most dishonest fashion.

I'll ignore your first two statements.

Today's China is a mixed bag in regards to religion. I accept that you can be neither communist nor atheist. What I was referring to was Mao Zedong and the CCP (see my question at the end).

Unfortunately, the recent Pew Poll on "Belief in God as Essential to Morality" was in error for China and thus discarded.

Worldwide, Many See Belief in God as Essential to Morality
Richer Nations Are Exception
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/03/13/worldwide-many-see-belief-in-god-as-essential-to-morality/

Here is the article on it
http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/the-atheists-of-beijing/

I got the attitudes of Chinese towards evolution from quora (since the Pew Research was in error)
https://www.quora.com/Do-Chinese-people-believe-in-the-theory-of-evolution

One has to look at the CCP. What are their attitudes towards atheism? What are their attitudes towards evolution? How much of China today is CCP?

 

[james bond]

Listen to me...

Spiritually, psychologically, culturally, personally... If you convince yourself of the value of anything it will have an impact on your life. If you make a conscious decision to choose milk as your favorite drink, even if you currently hate milk, then over time you will grow to like milk. You can then imbue your new like and want of milk with certain intangible qualities, believing that milk not only provides much needed calcium to your diet but that it can heal stomach ulcers and ease other internal ailments simply by coating your core with its life-giving nectar... You could then spend years coming to some personal conclusions about other mythologies surrounding the milk industry, perhaps imagining that only happy free-range cattle are providing the milk that you drink. You may think up awesome stories about where it comes from, day-dreaming about the process of lactation. You can believe really neat things about how it gets to your fridge every morning, or about why your packaging company is the best packing company.

All of these things can, as you've put it, certainly give meaning and value to your life and to your daily choices. You'll know that you can always rely on milk to be there when you're feeling down, or to help you celebrate when things are going right. You may go through periods where you begin to doubt some of the deeper beliefs that you have about milk, but I'd encourage you not to lose faith, because you did not come to new faith in milk lightly... I promise you, Milk will always be there, never leaving you or forsaking you, so long as you continue to have faith in milk...

The Bible is not wrong in it's suggestion that maintaining faith can be a powerful thing. It's a psychological realization that many religions and philosophers, the world over, have recognized. That is the power of faith. It is undisputed. But it is not evidence for your particular iteration of god any more than it is evidence for the magic healing powers of almighty milk.

I have not taken anything that you have said out of context. You simply do not like the fact that these videos and arguments are logically fallible suggestions.
They may very well be sincere - and that's great. I don't have a problem with that. But if you are going to open them up as truth claims, then we need to have a truth conversation.
They are not delving into the reasons behind why you see them as valid arguments for non-believers. (This fault of logic is not just true of you - it's true of most believers. Your last video makes the same mistake that you're making, which the same mistake that Jason Lisle makes) Nowhere in these arguments and videos can you find evidence for a god... What you find is evidence for the psychological reasons behind WHY we believe in god, among other things.

Did you just compare milk to the Bible ha ha? I like cheese, but my acupuncturist wants me to avoid dairy. Take your own advice. Why don't you apply evolution to milk? Listen to yourself... "Spiritually, psychologically, culturally, personally... If you convince yourself of the value of anything it will have an impact on your life. If you make a conscious decision to choose milk as your favorite drink, even if you currently hate milk, then over time you will grow to like milk." "so long as you continue to have faith in milk (and evolution)" That which in parenthesis at end is mine.

I've been discussing the Bible for some time now and mainly discussed the science parts, so it has nothing to do with faith. We discussed faith and the existence of God, a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being.

If you did not see God nor the evidence of God in Ben Piershale's video, then I can't see for you nor comprehend for you. You are what God made you. Only you can change this view or only you can change yourself. I discussed free will and John 3:16, so the choice is always yours.

 

[McBell]

The first point is addressed to Mestemia who is at disadvantage to most.

You keep saying that, but you have not shown it to be true.

So point blank, no holds barred, in your face:

Put up or shut up.​

 

[McBell]

I'll ignore your first two statements.

You are well versed in ignoring truth and facts

 

[james bond]

You keep saying that, but you have not shown it to be true.

So point blank, no holds barred, in your face:

Put up or shut up.​

Advocatus Susurrone. Chronic complainer. The believers and I have put up 160 pages of truth and facts and still you're complaining ha ha.

Did you ask God to reveal himself to you.with all your heart, i.e. sincerely, as Ben Piershale stated (watch video at end of my post #3175)? Maybe He'll come in a hoodie except he won't have the red eyes from smoking j's like you.

 

[McBell]

Advocatus Susurrone. Chronic complainer. The believers and I have put up 160 pages of truth and facts and still you're complaining ha ha.

Did you ask God to reveal himself to you.with all your heart, i.e. sincerely, as Ben Piershale stated (watch video at end of my post #3175)? Maybe He'll come in a hoodie except he won't have the red eyes from smoking j's like you.

Ah, so I am "disadvantaged" because I do not buy into the snake oil you are selling?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Advocatus Susurrone. Chronic complainer. The believers and I have put up 160 pages of truth and facts and still you're complaining ha ha.

Did you ask God to reveal himself to you.with all your heart, i.e. sincerely, as Ben Piershale stated (watch video at end of my post #3175)? Maybe He'll come in a hoodie except he won't have the red eyes from smoking j's like you.

And yet in all those pages, you still managed to avoid presenting verifiable evidence for creationism.

 

[james bond]

And yet in all those pages, you still managed to avoid presenting verifiable evidence for creationism.

Wrong. I presented verifiable evidence for creation based on science and how science backs up the Bible. Unfortunately, the things I presented as evidence for God, I cannot comprehend for you. Your biases will not be overruled unless you let it (Dr. Jason Lisle, Ben Piershale, Billy Graham, a host of other creationists and I). Neither can I have faith for you when it is a prerequisite for having God in "your" life. This is the free will God created for you. Where else does this free will come from?

Back in my college days, I watched a classic Japanese movie titled Rashomon. If you haven't seen it, I recommend it. It is a film about everyone having their own reality or the thinking that our personal world exists because we exist. Scientifically, no person can be at another place from which they are at any time (even if you are the Flash). That said, you may have a different conclusion about the film after watching.

 

[gnostic]

I'll ignore your first two statements.

Today's China is a mixed bag in regards to religion. I accept that you can be neither communist nor atheist. What I was referring to was Mao Zedong and the CCP (see my question at the end).

Unfortunately, the recent Pew Poll on "Belief in God as Essential to Morality" was in error for China and thus discarded.

Worldwide, Many See Belief in God as Essential to Morality
Richer Nations Are Exception
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/03/13/worldwide-many-see-belief-in-god-as-essential-to-morality/

Here is the article on it
http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/the-atheists-of-beijing/

I got the attitudes of Chinese towards evolution from quora (since the Pew Research was in error)
https://www.quora.com/Do-Chinese-people-believe-in-the-theory-of-evolution

One has to look at the CCP. What are their attitudes towards atheism? What are their attitudes towards evolution? How much of China today is CCP?

You didn't answer my question, JB.

I've asked you, "Do you know of anyone here (at RF), who accept evolution as explanation for biological evolution, but who is both 'atheist' and 'communist' from China?"

It was a simple question.

What you have given me is 2 links to article with survey with a question like this: "Can a person be moral without being religious?"

What does any of that relates to anything about evolution?

Evolution is an explanation to biological changes through natural selection or mutation or any of the other possible mechanisms.

Your last link is a blog, where anyone (including the author of this blog) can post comments, expressing their opinions. What they express may not be scientific, so how that support your claim? Do you know any of the posters, personally? Or are you just posting this link simply because someone mention evolution and CCP?

Your earlier reply seemed to be associating evolution with atheism and with communism.

Communism is a political system and ideology; communism is not evolution.

Atheism deals with the theological question of the "existence" of any deity; atheism is not evolution.

You are not only using straw man, but you are making broad generalisation with evolution, as well as generalisation with atheism.

Hence my question of, do you know of anyone, you have met, who is from communist China?

How many of these atheists are communists? Can you name anyone you met here, at RF, who is communist?

Here is my original question to you:

Can you name a single RF member, who is both atheist and a communist from China?

So can you or cannot answer a simple question?

 

[Sapiens]

You didn't answer my question, JB.

I've asked you, "Do you know of anyone here (at RF), who accept evolution as explanation for biological evolution, but who is both 'atheist' and 'communist' from China?"

It was a simple question.

What you have given me is 2 links to article with survey with a question like this: "Can a person be moral without being religious?"

What does any of that relates to anything about evolution?

Evolution is an explanation to biological changes through natural selection or mutation or any of the other possible mechanisms.

Your last link is a blog, where anyone (including the author of this blog) can post comments, expressing their opinions. What they express may not be scientific, so how that support your claim? Do you know any of the posters, personally? Or are you just posting this link simply because someone mention evolution and CCP?

Your earlier reply seemed to be associating evolution with atheism and with communism.

Communism is a political system and ideology; communism is not evolution.

Atheism deals with the theological question of the "existence" of any deity; atheism is not evolution.

You are not only using straw man, but you are making broad generalisation with evolution, as well as generalisation with atheism.

Hence my question of, do you know of anyone, you have met, who is from communist China?

How many of these atheists are communists? Can you name anyone you met here, at RF, who is communist?

Here is my original question to you:



So can you or cannot answer a simple question?

I guess we should assume that his answer is "no."

 

[Jumi]

Ha ha. Atheists will not see the evidence because they do not have faith. Like I said, it's right in front of your nose. It may not be important to you now, but it will be later on.

That's why it's called faith. If only your people are capable of seeing it then it needs faith to be believed in.

 

[Jumi]

Hurricane Matthew. One of worst (or is it best) pareidolia I've ever seen.

I see two rats climbing up on the right.