Theist ➤ Why ☠ Evolution is not Scientific ✔

[The Joker]

All dating methods use dating assumptions(A belief) so non of them are correct.

What assumptions?

I can't copy them here, I can't link them 30/30 rule, neither can I explain them from the top of head. Google it. So dating assumptions proves no age.

[I_am_not_mafia]

All dating methods use dating assumptions(A belief) so non of them are correct.

You are saying that if you have a belief in it then it is incorrect.

You believe in God and make an assumption that he exists. Using your logic that must mean that he doesn't exist.

[The Joker]

No because, then if you are dead then you are dead, you feel no lose!

You lose precious time, effort and freedom in the only life that you have.

That is if only if you are right, but again if you are dead then you are dead, you feel no lose!

What freedom what effort? It is the same thing without God?

[I_am_not_mafia]

What assumptions?

I can't copy them here, I can't link them 30/30 rule, neither can I explain them from the top of head. Google it. So dating assumptions proves no age.

Google scholar brings up a load of peer reviewed scientific papers which suggests that the dating methods are largely correct. Which means that you are wrong.

[The Joker]

All dating methods use dating assumptions(A belief) so non of them are correct.

You are saying that if you have a belief in it then it is incorrect.

You believe in God and make an assumption that he exists. Using your logic that must mean that he doesn't exist.

 In religion I use a different term I have faith in God. But also with God there are absolute proves that he exists.

What I am saying is that you could have belief that the earth is 4 billion years old but don't call it a fact.

---

I can't copy them here, I can't link them 30/30 rule, neither can I explain them from the top of head. Google it. So dating assumptions proves no age.

Google scholar brings up a load of peer reviewed scientific papers which suggests that the dating methods are largely correct. Which means that you are wrong.

Then its falsely shown.

[I_am_not_mafia]

That is if only if you are right, but again if you are dead then you are dead, you feel no lose!

What freedom what effort? It is the same thing without God?

You feel the loss when you are alive regardless of whether you are right or wrong. Is that so hard to understand?

You have to pay a tithe.
You're told how to behave and act according to a book and how someone else interprets it according to their own personal bias and lose the freedom to figure things out for yourself.
You have to spend time praying, going to church every Sunday and proselytising.
You are conditioned and are repressed in unhealthy ways, such as believing that non-reproductive sex and masturbation is somehow unhealthy
You are compelled to spend time and effort to infect other people with the god virus, just like you are doing now.

Believing in god is like being infected with a parasite. It takes over your life and influences your actions to help it spread to other hosts.

All rather pointless if there is no god and there is only one short finite life. This is why Pascal's wager is wrong. Believing in God carries a cost.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Google scholar brings up a load of peer reviewed scientific papers which suggests that the dating methods are largely correct. Which means that you are wrong.

Then its falsely shown.

Publish a peer-reviewed paper in the scientific literature and then we can talk. Until then evidence is that you're wrong.

[robvalue]

There are an infinite number of possible gods, each of which could demand an infinite number of behaviours for you to "win".

Your chances are zero.

Why you'd think any god would be impressed with pretending to believe a bunch of shit to try and win a prize, I don't know. (If you're applying the wager at all, you don't really believe.)

[Cyberman]

That's right, poe, ride that Gish Gallop all the way from Ken Ham to Pascal's Wager and beyond. Ride it into the ground! Not even the most strident fundie mouth-breather acts quite as extreme as this and still retains bladder control.

[I_am_not_mafia]

 In religion I use a different term I have faith in God. But also with God there are absolute proves that he exists.

What I am saying is that you could have belief that the earth is 4 billion years old but don't call it a fact.

There are no absolute proofs that God exists.

So far every so called proof I've come across that God exists can make a better 'proof' that he doesn't exist.

What you are ignoring is evidence, which is ironic considering that you started this whole thread on the basis that this is important. Your OP stated that the theory of evolution was not testable, reproducible, falsifiable or observable.

So is evidence important or not?

If evidence is not important then your OP can be ignored.

If evidence is important then your 'absolute proof' in God can be ignored because there is no evidence for God and we can accept that the Earth is 4 billion years old because the evidence shows it to be.

Either way ... you lose.