Theist ➤ Why ☠ Evolution is not Scientific ✔

[Tonus]

Administrator Notice

Material plagiarised from https://answersingenesis.org/are-humans-...life-ob16/. If you're going to parrot Ken Ham, at least have the decency to cite the source.
-Stimbo

If someone is going to use Ken Ham as a source, I think it's appropriate that it was someone named The Joker.

[Cyberman]

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

[Anomalocaris]

He is a christard yearning to be a bigger moron, afterall

[The Joker]

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.

---

To summarise, Joker can't show that evolution isn't testable, reproducible, falsifiable and observable. When we provide evidence that it is he responds that what we are referring to is not evolution because some animals cannot breed with one another. Yet he doesn't explain why this invalidates the theory of evolution.

The Various Tests prove a young earth of 6000yrs, Creationist Science Ken Ham. 

• Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds
  
• Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth
  
• Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model
  
• “The Pitfalls in the Radioactive Dating Methods—The Radiocarbon Dating Method
  
• The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young
  
• The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth
  
• “The Earth’s Magnetic Field” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past
  
• Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay
  
• Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay
  
• The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere Estimated by its Helium Content
  
• “Helium in Rocks and in the Atmosphere”
  
• DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria
  

---

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.

So what? I'd rather Go to Heaven than Hell for all eternity.

[I_am_not_mafia]

The Various Tests prove a young earth of 6000yrs, Creationist Science Ken Ham. 

• Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds
  
• Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth
  
• Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model
  
• “The Pitfalls in the Radioactive Dating Methods—The Radiocarbon Dating Method
  
• The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young
  
• The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth
  
• “The Earth’s Magnetic Field” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past
  
• Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay
  
• Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay
  
• The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere Estimated by its Helium Content
  
• “Helium in Rocks and in the Atmosphere”
  
• DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria
  

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

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.

So what? I'd rather Go to Heaven than Hell for all eternity.

But if you're wrong and there is no eternal Heaven and Hell then you have endured the above loss during your one finite life for no reason.

Therefore Pascal's wager doesn't work. His wager assumes that there is no cost to believing. There is.

How much clearer can I make it? How many times do I need to repeat this? I've even formatted it for you.

[The Joker]

The Various Tests prove a young earth of 6000yrs, Creationist Science Ken Ham. 

• Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds
  
• Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth
  
• Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model
  
• “The Pitfalls in the Radioactive Dating Methods—The Radiocarbon Dating Method
  
• The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young
  
• The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth
  
• “The Earth’s Magnetic Field” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past
  
• Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay
  
• Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay
  
• The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere Estimated by its Helium Content
  
• “Helium in Rocks and in the Atmosphere”
  
• DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria
  

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

So what? I'd rather Go to Heaven than Hell for all eternity.

But if you're wrong and there is no eternal Heaven and Hell then you have endured the above loss during your one finite life for no reason.

Therefore Pascal's wager doesn't work. His wager assumes that there is no cost to believing. There is.

How much clearer can I make it? How many times do I need to repeat this? I've even formatted it for you.

That is only *If* I am wrong so what? Its not like am going to feel the pain of loss If I am dead, because If there is no God then I am dead, that is basically it I feel no loss because when your dead you don't know. But If I am right I gain everything
102932489023798247821632452361829379012830128301928309127899999999999999999999999910000000000000000000003333333333333337891638744444444444444444447019999999999999999999999913333333333344444444444444444444444444BILLION! + Eternity in heaven having all the fun! I've got nothing to lose in believing in the christian God. Christianity can be easily be proven true because of archaeology and fulfilled prophecies in the Bibe etc.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

Atheism doesn't account for morality.

In the same way that solipsism doesn't account for the decline of the rain forest.

In the same way that radiometric dating has nothing to do with evolution.

All atheism is, is a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Now if you're asking how atheists can be moral then that's a different question.

Answer is that morals come from evolved pack instincts regardless of whether you are an atheist, theist, gnostic or whatever. Morals are also influenced by culture based on these biologically evolved instincts. Some people do not have any morals because of how their brains are wired. Others have a very strong sense of morality, also because of how their brains have developed.

Wipe out the human race and morality disappears.

[The Joker]

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

Atheism doesn't account for morality.

In the same way that solipsism doesn't account for the decline of the rain forest.

In the same way that radiometric dating has nothing to do with evolution.

All atheism is, is a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Now if you're asking how atheists can be moral then that's a different question.

Answer is that morals come from evolved pack instincts regardless of whether you are an atheist, theist, gnostic or whatever. Morals are also influenced by culture based on these biologically evolved instincts. Some people do not have any morals because of how their brains are wired. Others have a very strong sense of morality, also because of how their brains have developed.

Wipe out the human race and morality disappears.

Give me evidence how morals evolve?

[RozKek]

Joker, you're allowed to post links as long as it's relevant to the discussion.

[I_am_not_mafia]

That is only *If* I am wrong so what? Its not like am going to feel the pain of loss If I am dead, because If there is no God then I am dead, that is basically it I feel no loss because when your dead you don't know. But If I am right I gain everything

And if you are wrong then you have wasted your one single finite life. You won't care about it if you are dead, but people do care about wasting their lives when they are alive.

Therefore Pascal's wager doesn't work. His wager assumes that there is no cost to believing. There is.