Biggest Lie You've Been Told

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

Show me an evolutionary biologists that supports your conclusions 

I just gave a name of an important and highly recommended book "Refuting Evolution" by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.

The author, Dr. Sarfati,is not only a brilliant scientist, but a master of concise, clear communication and logical thinking.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) had published an educator's guidebook entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science.  It had been made available to educators throughout America to encourage teachers to incorporate more evolution in their classes and basically teach particles-to-people evolution as a fact.

Dr. Sarfati, in his relatively small book, does as excellent job in refuting the NAS guidebook.

I can't spend a lot of time on here quoting the book.  If you are serious about learning something about this, you will have to get the book and make some effort yourself.  A lot of Dr. Sarfati's book and maybe all of it can be found on the creation.com website.  So it won't even cost you anything to learn something about the creationist point of view.

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

You're proving my point, you're using someone with Zero scientific training to debunk science.

No, that is not true.  The people I mentioned to you are highly qualified scientists.  I already told you that but you don't seem to pay attention very well.  Dr. Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.  is a highly qualified scientist.

[blackbird]

The forward to Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M. is written by Don Batten, B.Sc. Agr. (Hons. 1), Ph.D.,  Senior Scientist, writer and lecturer,  Creation Ministries International, Australia.

[SkyHigh]

23 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I just gave a name of an important and highly recommended book "Refuting Evolution" by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.

The author, Dr. Sarfati,is not only a brilliant scientist, but a master of concise, clear communication and logical thinking.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) had published an educator's guidebook entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science.  It had been made available to educators throughout America to encourage teachers to incorporate more evolution in their classes and basically teach particles-to-people evolution as a fact.

Dr. Sarfati, in his relatively small book, does as excellent job in refuting the NAS guidebook.

I can't spend a lot of time on here quoting the book.  If you are serious about learning something about this, you will have to get the book and make some effort yourself.  A lot of Dr. Sarfati's book and maybe all of it can be found on the creation.com website.  So it won't even cost you anything to learn something about the creationist point of view.

No, that is not true.  The people I mentioned to you are highly qualified scientists.  I already told you that but you don't seem to pay attention very well.  Dr. Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.  is a highly qualified scientist.

You're getting closer, at least this time guy has a legitimate degree in science, only problem is that it's in chemistry. He specialized in the electromagnetic spectra of light, nothing to do with evolution.

He's seems to be a very smart man and I would probably listen to anything he says about chess, but he's as reliable on evolutionary biology as my aforementioned mechanic

You do realize that even in the same field, those who studied in the sciences have specialties right ? For example if your foot hurts you don't go to someone who studied otolaryngology you go to someone who studied podiatry and they're both doctors.

Yet you take the word (and expect others to as well) of someone that studied something entirely unrelated to evolution? 

I had to make an edit because I just saw your last post. The other guy that wrote that book is a horticulturelist, again nothing to do with evolution.

Edited March 9 by SkyHigh

[blackbird]

6 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Yet you take the word (and expect others to as well) of someone that studied something entirely unrelated to evolution? 

I doubt very much if any scientist only specializes in evolution because what would be the point?  How could he earn a living?  Probably all scientists have certain things they specialize in such as micro-biology, certain field of chemistry or biology, physics, etc.  They have to be able to get a job related to their field to earn a living.  I doubt any scientist who claims to specialize in evolution could get a job because I doubt there is even a job strictly in that field.

You are playing games.  If you want scientists to talk about evolution, you will have to accept the fact that they are not necessarily strictly dealing with evolution.  They may be specialists in related subjects like biology or archeaology, etc.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Many scholarly scientists are quite capable to studying and learning things outside a narrow field that they have a degree in.  I don't even know if there a so-called evolutionary scientist in existence.  Of course many others will claim they are experts in the field but that can be taken with a grain of salt because it is only a theory and has been refuted by many other highly educated scientists.

But there is an article that you might want to consider:

Loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life (creation.com)

[blackbird]

16 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Yet you take the word (and expect others to as well) of someone that studied something entirely unrelated to evolution? 

That is not factual.  Dr. Sarfati and Dr. Stott and many others are scientists in some field but they have taken a great interest in the subject of evolution versus creation and have spent a great deal of time studying the subject in great detail.  They know what they are talking about.

This article has 15 loopholes in the theory of evolution:

Loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life (creation.com)

Here they are:

"

There is almost universal agreement among specialists that Earth’s primordial atmosphere contained no methane, ammonia or hydrogen — ‘reducing’ gases. Rather, most evolutionists now believe it contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Miller-type sparking experiments will not work with those gases in the absence of reducing gases. See The primitive atmosphere.

The atmosphere contained free oxygen, which would destroy organic compounds. Oxygen would be produced by photodissociation of water vapour. Oxidized minerals such as hematite are found as early as 3.8 billion years old, almost as old as the earliest rocks, and 300 million years older than the earliest life. There is also evidence for organisms complex enough to photosynthesize at 3.7 billion years ago (Rosing, M.T. and Frei, R., U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland—indications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 217:237–244, 2004). Also, red jasper or hematite-rich chert cored from layers allegedly 3.46 billion years old showed that ‘there had to be as much oxygen in the atmosphere 3.46 billion years ago as there is in today’s atmosphere. To have this amount of oxygen, the Earth must have had oxygen producing organisms like cyanobacteria actively producing it, placing these organisms much earlier in Earth’s history than previously thought’ (Deep-sea rocks point to early oxygen on Earth, 24 March 2009). NB: these ‘dates’ are according to the evolutionary/uniformitarian framework, which I strongly reject on both biblical and scientific grounds — see How long were the days mentioned in the biblical creation account? and Evidence for a Young World.

Catch-22: if there was no oxygen there would be no ozone, so ultraviolet light would destroy biochemicals. Also, the hydrogen cyanide polymerization that is alleged to lead to adenine can occur only in the presence of oxygen (see Eastman et al., Exploring the Structure of a Hydrogen Cyanide Polymer by Electron Spin Resonance and Scanning Force Microscopy, Scanning 2:19–24, p. 20).

All energy sources that produce the biochemicals destroy them even faster! The Miller–Urey experiments used strategically designed traps to isolate the biochemicals as soon as they were formed so the sparks/UV did not destroy them. Without the traps, even the tiny amounts obtained would not have been formed.

Biochemicals would react with each other or with inorganic chemicals. Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino (–NH2) compounds), but both must be present for a cell to form.

Without enzymes from a living cell, formaldehyde (HCHO) reactions with hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are necessary for the formation of DNA and RNA bases, condensing agents, etc. But HCHO and especially HCN are deadly poisons — HCN was used in the Nazi gas chambers! They destroy vital proteins.

Abundant Ca2+ ions would precipitate fatty acids (necessary for cell membranes) and phosphate (necessary for such vital compounds as DNA, RNA, ATP, etc.). Metal ions readily form complexes with amino acids, hindering them from more important reactions.

No geological evidence has been found anywhere on Earth for the alleged primordial soup. See Primeval soup — failed paradigm.

Depolymerisation is much faster than polymerisation. Water is a poor medium for condensation polymerisation. Polymers will hydrolyse in water over geological time. Condensing agents (water-absorbing chemicals) require acid conditions and they could not accumulate in water. Heating to evaporate water tends to destroy some vital amino acids, racemise all the amino acids, and requires geologically unrealistic conditions. Besides, heating amino acids with other gunk produced by Miller experiments would destroy them. See Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem.

Polymerisation requires bifunctional molecules (that can combine with two others), and is stopped by a small fraction of unifunctional molecules (that can combine with only one other, thus blocking one end of the growing chain). Miller experiments produce five times more unifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules. See Origin of life: the polymerization problem.

Sugars are destroyed quickly after the formose (or Butlerov) reaction that is supposed to have formed them. This reaction involves formaldehyde and alkali, but the very same alkaline conditions destroy aldose sugars—including ribose and glucose—via the Cannizzaro reaction, which converts two molecules of an aldehyde to an alcohol and an acid. Also, the alkaline conditions needed to form sugars are incompatible with acid conditions required to form polypeptides with condensing agents. See Can nucleobases and self-replication arise from non-living chemicals?.

Long time periods do not help the evolutionary theory if biochemicals are destroyed faster than they are formed (cf. points 4, 7, and 9).

Not all of the necessary ‘building blocks’ are formed; e.g. ribose and cytosine are hard to form and are very unstable. See Origin of life: Instability of building blocks.

Life requires homochiral polymers (all the same ‘handedness’) — proteins have only ‘left-handed’ amino acids, while DNA and RNA have only ‘right-handed’ sugars. Miller experiments produce racemates — equal mixtures of left and right handed molecules. A small fraction of wrong-handed molecules terminates RNA replication, shortens polypeptides, and ruins enzymes. See Origin of life: the chirality problem and Homochirality an unsolved problem (quote).

Life requires catalysts which are specific for a single type of molecule. This requires specific amino acid sequences, which have extremely low probabilities (~10–5000 for all the enzymes required). Prebiotic polymerisation simulations yield random sequences, not functional proteins or enzymes. See World record enzymes, New DNA repair enzyme discovered, and Answering another uninformed atheist: Galileo, Miller–Urey, probability.

The origin of the coding system of proteins on DNA is an enigma. So is the origin of the message encoded, which is extraneous to the chemistry, as a printed message is to ink molecules. Code translation apparatus and replicating machinery are themselves encoded — a vicious circle. A code cannot self-organize. See Self-replicating enzymes? and Can nucleobases and self-replication arise from non-living chemicals?.

The origin of machines requires design, not random energy. E.g. the Nobel prize-winning biochemist Robert Bruce Merrifield (1921–2006) designed an automatic protein synthesiser. Each amino acid added to the polymer requires 90 steps. The amino acid sequence is determined by a program. A living cell is like a self-replicating Merrifield machine."

 

[blackbird]

Here is an interesting reason that casts doubt on the theory of evolution.

"No geological evidence has been found anywhere on Earth for the alleged primordial soup. See Primeval soup — failed paradigm."

You can see from the above list of 15 reasons that cast doubt on the theory of evolution that it becomes a very complex subject and much of it requires a higher education in certain sciences.

However there are certain things the average person can understand or glean from the information which makes sense.  

Edited March 9 by blackbird

[blackbird]

40 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Yet you take the word (and expect others to as well) of someone that studied something entirely unrelated to evolution?

Probably the most famous atheist and proponent of the theory of evolution is Richard Dawkins.  Yet he was not a so-called evolution scientist.

He was a zoologist. 

"He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, graduating in 1962; while there, he was tutored by Nobel Prize -winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. He graduated with upper-second class honours."  --- wikipedia

If you are interested, you can watch debates between Richard Dawkins and Creationists on youtube.  Just search creation evolution debate on youtube.

Edited March 9 by blackbird

[blackbird]

Another book written by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati is "The Greatest Hoax on Earth".

Description

Richard Dawkins, the undisputed high priest of evolution/atheism, says his book The Greatest Show on Earth: the evidence for evolution is the first time he has presented all the evidence for evolution/long ages. It is promoted as an unanswerable demolition of creation. Scientist, logician, chessmaster and author of the world’s biggest-selling creationist book, CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati, relentlessly demolishes Dawkin’s claims point-by-point, showing biblical creation makes more sense of the evidence. A must-read—and a must-give (to all evolutionist acquaintances)!

The Greatest Hoax on Earth? (creation.com)

[SkyHigh]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I don't even know if there a so-called evolutionary scientist in existence. 

This again proves my point, you not only don't read the literature by professionals you deny they even exist. I'm not sure you understand science as a whole or how it expresses to help us understand what's going on around us.

You seem to think science is against religion. It is not. Science just can not add god into the equation until it can measured in repeatable way. In fact science makes no claims about any God at all.

I have researched your side , I grew up listening to Kent Hovind and the like, I've read so many of the apologetics on the subject and I've actually read the Bible not just the parts pastors like to cherry pick from the pulpit. You on the other hand, not only do you refuse to read the material written by qualified biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, etc., who studied years specifically related to evolution, you actually try and say there's no such things as an "evolution scientist"

Serious question, could you help me understand why you think evolution goes against your God? I'm much more interested in that than us debating an issue we're both ignorant on, if you don't mind I'd love having a discussion on that.

[blackbird]

12 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Serious question, could you help me understand why you think evolution goes against your God?

It would take a whole book to properly present the reasons why it goes against God.

I mentioned the book Darwin's Universe by Yan T. Wee that goes into that in great detail.

Basically I would say it boils down to the fact that the theory of evolution buries God in a causeless universe.  The theory of evolution implies the universe is a cosmic accident and we are here strictly by an accident of chemicals coming together.  This goes against reason and logic.  Life has no real purpose.

As the book says, Darwinism is a ticket into a universe of ultimate meaninglessness and despair.  Is that really what you want?

Edited March 9 by blackbird

[SkyHigh]

38 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That is not factual.  Dr. Sarfati and Dr. Stott and many others are scientists in some field but they have taken a great interest in the subject of evolution versus creation and have spent a great deal of time studying the subject in great detail.  They know what they are talking about.

This article has 15 loopholes in the theory of evolution:

Loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life (creation.com)

Here they are:

"

There is almost universal agreement among specialists that Earth’s primordial atmosphere contained no methane, ammonia or hydrogen — ‘reducing’ gases. Rather, most evolutionists now believe it contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Miller-type sparking experiments will not work with those gases in the absence of reducing gases. See The primitive atmosphere.

The atmosphere contained free oxygen, which would destroy organic compounds. Oxygen would be produced by photodissociation of water vapour. Oxidized minerals such as hematite are found as early as 3.8 billion years old, almost as old as the earliest rocks, and 300 million years older than the earliest life. There is also evidence for organisms complex enough to photosynthesize at 3.7 billion years ago (Rosing, M.T. and Frei, R., U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland—indications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 217:237–244, 2004). Also, red jasper or hematite-rich chert cored from layers allegedly 3.46 billion years old showed that ‘there had to be as much oxygen in the atmosphere 3.46 billion years ago as there is in today’s atmosphere. To have this amount of oxygen, the Earth must have had oxygen producing organisms like cyanobacteria actively producing it, placing these organisms much earlier in Earth’s history than previously thought’ (Deep-sea rocks point to early oxygen on Earth, 24 March 2009). NB: these ‘dates’ are according to the evolutionary/uniformitarian framework, which I strongly reject on both biblical and scientific grounds — see How long were the days mentioned in the biblical creation account? and Evidence for a Young World.

Catch-22: if there was no oxygen there would be no ozone, so ultraviolet light would destroy biochemicals. Also, the hydrogen cyanide polymerization that is alleged to lead to adenine can occur only in the presence of oxygen (see Eastman et al., Exploring the Structure of a Hydrogen Cyanide Polymer by Electron Spin Resonance and Scanning Force Microscopy, Scanning 2:19–24, p. 20).

All energy sources that produce the biochemicals destroy them even faster! The Miller–Urey experiments used strategically designed traps to isolate the biochemicals as soon as they were formed so the sparks/UV did not destroy them. Without the traps, even the tiny amounts obtained would not have been formed.

Biochemicals would react with each other or with inorganic chemicals. Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino (–NH2) compounds), but both must be present for a cell to form.

Without enzymes from a living cell, formaldehyde (HCHO) reactions with hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are necessary for the formation of DNA and RNA bases, condensing agents, etc. But HCHO and especially HCN are deadly poisons — HCN was used in the Nazi gas chambers! They destroy vital proteins.

Abundant Ca2+ ions would precipitate fatty acids (necessary for cell membranes) and phosphate (necessary for such vital compounds as DNA, RNA, ATP, etc.). Metal ions readily form complexes with amino acids, hindering them from more important reactions.

No geological evidence has been found anywhere on Earth for the alleged primordial soup. See Primeval soup — failed paradigm.

Depolymerisation is much faster than polymerisation. Water is a poor medium for condensation polymerisation. Polymers will hydrolyse in water over geological time. Condensing agents (water-absorbing chemicals) require acid conditions and they could not accumulate in water. Heating to evaporate water tends to destroy some vital amino acids, racemise all the amino acids, and requires geologically unrealistic conditions. Besides, heating amino acids with other gunk produced by Miller experiments would destroy them. See Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem.

Polymerisation requires bifunctional molecules (that can combine with two others), and is stopped by a small fraction of unifunctional molecules (that can combine with only one other, thus blocking one end of the growing chain). Miller experiments produce five times more unifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules. See Origin of life: the polymerization problem.

Sugars are destroyed quickly after the formose (or Butlerov) reaction that is supposed to have formed them. This reaction involves formaldehyde and alkali, but the very same alkaline conditions destroy aldose sugars—including ribose and glucose—via the Cannizzaro reaction, which converts two molecules of an aldehyde to an alcohol and an acid. Also, the alkaline conditions needed to form sugars are incompatible with acid conditions required to form polypeptides with condensing agents. See Can nucleobases and self-replication arise from non-living chemicals?.

Long time periods do not help the evolutionary theory if biochemicals are destroyed faster than they are formed (cf. points 4, 7, and 9).

Not all of the necessary ‘building blocks’ are formed; e.g. ribose and cytosine are hard to form and are very unstable. See Origin of life: Instability of building blocks.

Life requires homochiral polymers (all the same ‘handedness’) — proteins have only ‘left-handed’ amino acids, while DNA and RNA have only ‘right-handed’ sugars. Miller experiments produce racemates — equal mixtures of left and right handed molecules. A small fraction of wrong-handed molecules terminates RNA replication, shortens polypeptides, and ruins enzymes. See Origin of life: the chirality problem and Homochirality an unsolved problem (quote).

Life requires catalysts which are specific for a single type of molecule. This requires specific amino acid sequences, which have extremely low probabilities (~10–5000 for all the enzymes required). Prebiotic polymerisation simulations yield random sequences, not functional proteins or enzymes. See World record enzymes, New DNA repair enzyme discovered, and Answering another uninformed atheist: Galileo, Miller–Urey, probability.

The origin of the coding system of proteins on DNA is an enigma. So is the origin of the message encoded, which is extraneous to the chemistry, as a printed message is to ink molecules. Code translation apparatus and replicating machinery are themselves encoded — a vicious circle. A code cannot self-organize. See Self-replicating enzymes? and Can nucleobases and self-replication arise from non-living chemicals?.

The origin of machines requires design, not random energy. E.g. the Nobel prize-winning biochemist Robert Bruce Merrifield (1921–2006) designed an automatic protein synthesiser. Each amino acid added to the polymer requires 90 steps. The amino acid sequence is determined by a program. A living cell is like a self-replicating Merrifield machine."

 

These are all things that I lack the knowledge to refute, and you don't even understand, so I'm not going to waste my time or yours debating them. I will remind you that my views happen to align with virtually every expert, in every relevant field. 

Though I'd bet that if you googled each of them, they all have a recognized professional that could explain every one of them.

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, SkyHigh said:

These are all things that I lack the knowledge to refute, and you don't even understand, so I'm not going to waste my time or yours debating them. I will remind you that my views happen to align with virtually every expert, in every relevant field. 

Though I'd bet that if you googled each of them, they all have a recognized professional that could explain every one of them.

Will leave you to it then.  I see your mind is definitely biased with the world view. Not all scientists agree with the theory of evolution as you claimed.  I mentioned several who refute the theory.

You will have to read up on it.  You are correct in that a lot of the information I quoted in the 15 reasons against evolution are beyond our abilities.  However, if you are going to look at both sides of the debate, you have to accept that there are scientists such as the ones I mentioned, who will give explanations from a scientific point of view that refute evolution.

The theory of evolution is more of a religion than a science anyway.  Darwin's theory was a very simplistic theory that was speculation and not backed by any scientific proof.  

[SkyHigh]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

I would take a whole book to properly present the reason why it goes against God.

I mentioned the book Darwin's Universe by Yan T. Wee that goes into that in great detail.

Basically I would say it boils down to the fact that the theory of evolution buries God in a causeless universe.  The theory of evolution implies the universe is a cosmic accident and we are here strictly by an accident of chemicals coming together.  This goes against reason and logic.  Life has no real purpose.

As the book says, Darwinism is a ticket into a universe of ultimate meaninglessness and despair.  Is that really what you want?

Continuing to use the term Darwinism makes me believe you're not trying to have a good faith argument. No need to respond directly to this, the truth of my statement will be reflected in your verbiage going forward.

Back to the topic, could God not have created the earth to evolve as science suggests?

I'm speaking solely on the idea of evolution by natural selection. I am not speaking about how life began or the big bang. Just evolution 

[SkyHigh]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Will leave you to it then.  I see your mind is definitely biased with the world view. Not all scientists agree with the theory of evolution as you claimed.  I mentioned several who refute the theory.

You will have to read up on it.  You are correct in that a lot of the information I quoted in the 15 reasons against evolution are beyond our abilities.  However, if you are going to look at both sides of the debate, you have to accept that there are scientists such as the ones I mentioned, who will give explanations from a scientific point of view that refute evolution.

The theory of evolution is more of a religion than a science anyway.  Darwin's theory was a very simplistic theory that was speculation and not backed by any scientific proof.  

Now you're being dishonest. I have never said you were wrong in believing what you believe, nor have I said I'm not open to the possibility that you're right. In fact I spoke about being home schooled with creationist material, I told you previously about my knowledge of the Bible and past as a believer 

My whole point was and is you don't even know what evolution says so how can you say it's false. Go on Amazon buy a used textbook from an accredited institute of higher education first year biology and try to understand what the other side is actually saying.

[Yakuda]

3 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

By reading religious texts, for example the Vedas speak about every action in this physical life will have consequences on your next physical life or reincarnation (Works) , while the Bible teaches the ONLY way for your physical body to get to the next level is believing/accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour,(Faith )this life is but rags as the book says

 

Confucius said "do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself "  around 500 BCE.

First Judeo-Christian is a modern term coined to fight fascism in the 19 hundreds. Second, it's just one of the multitude of religious that have appropriated the evolutionary social behaviors that produce the best results, ie: humanism 

I think I already did but here goes. Lets go back to basics, if I punch someone in the face without the prior knowledge of what the consequences and effects might be, but I have empathy, I will be able to see that I've caused the other person pain/harm ,and not wanting said pain/harm inflicted on me I will refrain from punching others 

Faith alone or sola fide is a perversion of christian scripture. 

Meaningless. You and every atheist I know is a product of a judeo christian society. 

Give me an atheistic reason why I should have empathy or even consider it if I am the biggest baddest dude in the neighborhood. Why should I care about you? 

[Yakuda]

3 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

I'm not looking to convert anyone to anything, I'm all about live and let live. I just think discussions should be based on fact

 

It's funny your bully story sounds like you're describing the god of the Bible.

But I digress, Inherently there may be nothing wrong with it, but non sociopaths with empathy will see that you're causing harm and then the whole neighborhood, one dude with a big stick or a peace officer will come and take care of you. We call those laws, no god needed 

People with faulty understanding would think that. You also don't understand christian but you seem to think a perversion of Christianity is Christianity. There is nothing inherently wrong with it this just your special pleading. Not a convincing argument. I do like how you think throwing the word empathy around matters. If it does it's not because of atheism. 

[SkyHigh]

3 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

People with faulty understanding would think that. You also don't understand christian but you seem to think a perversion of Christianity is Christianity. There is nothing inherently wrong with it this just your special pleading. Not a convincing argument. I do like how you think throwing the word empathy around matters. If it does it's not because of atheism. 

I'd be interested to have you expand on where my reasoning was faulty.

That's not what special pleading is. The best way to explain it to would be by asking you a question, so here goes (please answer).

If everything is created who created god? We'll get back to that.

The development of empathy was just an example of the evolution we've gone through as a species and totally irrelevant to atheism.

In fact atheism has nothing to say about morality.

Furthermore the concept of rules and laws existed in societies well before Abrahamic religions, as well as during and then continuously throughout history 

Nothing you're saying is specific to your version of God, nor is it specific to your moral system 

[SkyHigh]

34 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Faith alone or sola fide is a perversion of christian scripture. 

Meaningless. You and every atheist I know is a product of a judeo christian society. 

Give me an atheistic reason why I should have empathy or even consider it if I am the biggest baddest dude in the neighborhood. Why should I care about you? 

I'm not going to do a Bible study with you, but the fact that you can interpret the "word of God" ,in so many different ways on its own, proves a tri Omni god can't exist 

[blackbird]

51 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Back to the topic, could God not have created the earth to evolve as science suggests?

I'm speaking solely on the idea of evolution by natural selection. I am not speaking about how life began or the big bang. Just evolution 

No.  That is contrary to the account given in the beginning of Genesis that God created everything in six days.  The way it is presented in Genesis tells us it is meant to be taken literally.  

The fact is it was a supernatural event.  The Bible is full of supernatural events that happened and that is how God created the universe according to the written revelation, the Bible.

The fact that there are scientists that have successfully refuted the theory of evolution (or Darwinism because that is where the theory came from) must be taken seriously.

However, I cannot convince you.  It is up to you to sort it out by a serious investigation into what creation scientists have said.

A good book in my opinion to start with is Darwin's Universe...  etc.  by Yan. T. Wee.  Heis not a scientist but his book is extremely rational.  Not everyone who writes on the topic has to be a scientist.  Science has been found wanting in many ways and a lot of science has been later rejected.

[Yakuda]

3 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

I'd be interested to have you expand on where my reasoning was faulty.

That's not what special pleading is. The best way to explain it to would be by asking you a question, so here goes (please answer).

If everything is created who created god? We'll get back to that.

The development of empathy was just an example of the evolution we've gone through as a species and totally irrelevant to atheism.

In fact atheism has nothing to say about morality.

Furthermore the concept of rules and laws existed in societies well before Abrahamic religions, as well as during and then continuously throughout history 

Nothing you're saying is specific to your version of God, nor is it specific to your moral system 

 

You separated works from faith in reference to Christianity. That's a misunderstanding at best and a perversion of Christianity at worse. 

Correct atheism has nothing to say about morality so you have no legitimate reason to oppose my being the biggest baddest ahole in the neighborhood 

3 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

I'm not going to do a Bible study with you, but the fact that you can interpret the "word of God" ,in so many different ways on its own, proves a tri Omni god can't exist 

Right, you can't do a Bible study with me. 

[SkyHigh]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

No.  That is contrary to the account given in the beginning of Genesis that God created everything in six days.  The way it is presented in Genesis tells us it is meant to be taken literally.  

The fact is it was a supernatural event.  The Bible is full of supernatural events that happened and that is how God created the universe according to the written revelation, the Bible.

The fact that there are scientists that have successfully refuted the theory of evolution (or Darwinism because that is where the theory came from) must be taken seriously.

However, I cannot convince you.  It is up to you to sort it out by a serious investigation into what creation scientists have said.

A good book in my opinion to start with is Darwin's Universe...  etc.  by Yan. T. Wee.  Heis not a scientist but his book is extremely rational.  Not everyone who writes on the topic has to be a scientist.  Science has been found wanting in many ways and a lot of science has been later rejected.

Ok you're obviously not actually trying to respond to what I'm writing and maybe not even reading it in good faith, you're more interested it spouting your retoric. I am not interested in those types of conversations.

I hope you have a great night 😁

4 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

You separated works from faith in reference to Christianity. That's a misunderstanding at best and a perversion of Christianity at worse. 

Correct atheism has nothing to say about morality so you have no legitimate reason to oppose my being the biggest baddest ahole in the neighborhood 

Right, you can't do a Bible study with me. 

I asked you a question

If everything is created who created god?

[Yakuda]

3 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Ok you're obviously not actually trying to respond to what I'm writing and maybe not even reading it in good faith, you're more interested it spouting your retoric. I am not interested in those types of conversations.

I hope you have a great night 😁

I asked you a question

If everything is created who created god?

God is he isn't created 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

Back to the topic, could God not have created the earth to evolve as science suggests?

You asked me and I answered and told you what the Bible says.  Then you complain and say I am spouting my rhetoric.  Whatever I say, you claim I am not answering in good faith.

[SkyHigh]

1 minute ago, Yakuda said:

God is he isn't created 

And that is special pleading. Giving different (or special) attributes to one thing and not others 

[Yakuda]

1 minute ago, SkyHigh said:

And that is special pleading. Giving different (or special) attributes to one thing and not others 

No it just is. Someone or something had to exist outside what we know in order to create what is. Nothing creates itself except that which had to exist the create what is.