Theist ➤ Why ☠ Evolution is not Scientific ✔

[The Joker]

Scientists start with observations.  These do not require the assumption that God does or does not exist.  They form hypotheses from those observations, which must be testable and falsifiable and must produce results consistent with the hypothesis in order to become a theory, which must do the same but with more rigorous standards.

Creationists start with the presupposition that God must exist and that the world bears the marks of his intervention and that any and every discovery, observation, hypothesis, and theory must take this into account.  Not only are they biased every step of the way, they are obligated to reject any facts or theories that do not specifically credit the mythological accounts that they presuppose are 100% true.  Because they begin from a basis that they admit cannot be tested or falsified they have no consensus on how to proceed, which is why they selectively accept science when they feel it supports their claims and then reject that same science if it refutes them.

Also, "historical/operational" science are bullshit terms defined specifically for convenience and, like any other creationist claim, are used or ignored as needed.

The Cosmological Argument proves God.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Wrong.

[ApeNotKillApe]

You ignorant slut.

[Mister Agenda]

Good,  Now this is where the Pascal Wager argument kicks in.

Where are you going to place your bet? If you place it with God, you lose nothing, even if it turns out that God does not exist. But if you place it against God, and you are wrong and God does exist, you lose everything: God, eternity, heaven, infinite gain. "Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose nothing." ~Peter Kreeft Catholic Theologian

Joker, if you send me $100 (far less than what a tithe or daily prayer is worth), I'll send you a million. Where are you going to place your bet? If you place it with me, you only lose a hundred bucks; even if it turns out I can't be relied on to send you what I've agreed to. But if you place it against me and you are wrong and I would have sent you the million, you choose a sure $100 now over a possible million later. You have so much to gain and so little to lose.

If you choose not to accept my offer, please explain why not.

[Mister Agenda]

Rock dating are just based on random evolutionary assumption, so this does not prove that the earth is billions of years old because the geologists weren't there.

No, it isn't, as I've explained previously, so there's that. You don't have to reply to every post, but if you're not even reading them, what's the point of talking to you?

[Mister Agenda]

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

There's no prize here for most inane post, but maybe there should be.

[robvalue]

He's this guy.

[The Joker]

Good,  Now this is where the Pascal Wager argument kicks in.

Where are you going to place your bet? If you place it with God, you lose nothing, even if it turns out that God does not exist. But if you place it against God, and you are wrong and God does exist, you lose everything: God, eternity, heaven, infinite gain. "Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose nothing." ~Peter Kreeft Catholic Theologian

Joker, if you send me $100 (far less than what a tithe or daily prayer is worth), I'll send you a million. Where are you going to place your bet? If you place it with me, you only lose a hundred bucks; even if it turns out I can't be relied on to send you what I've agreed to. But if you place it against me and you are wrong and I would have sent you the million, you choose a sure $100 now over a possible million later. You have so much to gain and so little to lose.

If you choose not to accept my offer, please explain why not.

Joker, if you send me $100 (far less than what a tithe or daily prayer is worth), I'll send you a million.

What's the money for>=?
Anyway I don't want the money because that won't be fair, on you, and even if you were okay with it, I wouldn't take it because it would be a unfair trade, which is a sin.

[Mister Agenda]

Interesting how, for all his whining about atheists having no moral foundation, the only one here exhibiting a total lack of decency is him.

You haven't answered my question because you don't know, this proves , The failure of atheism to account for morality.

Account for morality with theism. Not Christianity, theism. Remember that Aztec religion, Baal Worship, and Wicca all fall under theism.

Atheism compares with theism, not with a specific religion. Try comparing Christianity with humanism if you want to talk about morals. If you want to account for them, sociobiology does so handily.

[The Joker]

Joker, you're allowed to post(exceptions to 30/30).... as long as it's relevant to the discussion.

Rock dating are just based on random evolutionary assumption, so this does not prove that the earth is billions of years old because the geologists weren't there.

No, it isn't, as I've explained previously, so there's that. You don't have to reply to every post, but if you're not even reading them, what's the point of talking to you?

See above.