Is Atheism Dead ?

@pb1022 said
Piltdown Man wasn’t exposed as a fraud for 40 years.

The fraudulent embryo drawings put forth by Ernst Haeckel were still taught as fact in some schools even after they were exposed as a fraud.

The theory of evolution isn’t science. It’s a religion for atheists. If atheists would stop pretending it’s science, I’d stop talking about it.

You believe a book a magic and miracles, that a man fed 5000 people with three loaves of bread and two fish and turned water into wine, but you deny the evidence of genetics and the entire sciences of geology and paleontology. I don't think your opinion carries much weight.

@avalanchethecat said
There is no evidence outside scripture, which is to say, no credible evidence at all.

You have no credible reason to doubt Scripture. And, as I said, experts in evaluating evidence, two of whom were atheists, investigated the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection and concluded the Resurrection happened.

But they had open minds, while yours on this subject is not.

@avalanchethecat said
You believe a book a magic and miracles, that a man fed 5000 people with three loaves of bread and two fish and turned water into wine, but you deny the evidence of genetics and the entire sciences of geology and paleontology. I don't think your opinion carries much weight.

Do you deny what I wrote about Piltdown Man and Ernst Haeckel? Your claim that fraud and hoaxes are uncovered quickly by science is false, at least when it comes to the theory of evolution.

And if God created the universe (and He did) surely He wouldn’t be stumped over how to multiply loaves and fishes and turn water into wine.

And research into genetics does more to disprove the theory of evolution than to support it. Ditto geology and paleontology.

@pb1022 said
You have no credible reason to doubt Scripture. And, as I said, experts in evaluating evidence, two of whom were atheists, investigated the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection and concluded the Resurrection happened.

But they had open minds, while yours on this subject is not.

When confronted with tales of magic and miracle, the default position SHOULD be scepticism.

@pb1022 said
Do you deny what I wrote about Piltdown Man and Ernst Haeckel? Your claim that fraud and hoaxes are uncovered quickly by science is false, at least when it comes to the theory of evolution.

And if God created the universe (and He did) surely He wouldn’t be stumped over how to multiply loaves and fishes and turn water into wine.

And research into genetics does more to disprove the theory of evolution than to support it. Ditto geology and paleontology.

Do I deny that the occasional hoax has been perpetrated by scientists and later revealed to be such? Of course not. That you resort to these long discredited cases reveals the infirmity of your argument. That you are happy to accept magic and miracle on the basis of a single obviously biased and flimsy source while blithely denying the evidence of a hundred years of research in several different disciplines debases your opinion completely.

@pb1022 said
You have no credible reason to doubt Scripture. And, as I said, experts in evaluating evidence, two of whom were atheists, investigated the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection and concluded the Resurrection happened.

But they had open minds, while yours on this subject is not.

Again, what evidence do you have which is not scriptural?

Crickets? Tumbleweed?

@avalanchethecat said
Do I deny that the occasional hoax has been perpetrated by scientists and later revealed to be such? Of course not. That you resort to these long discredited cases reveals the infirmity of your argument. That you are happy to accept magic and miracle on the basis of a single obviously biased and flimsy source while blithely denying the evidence of a hundred years of research in several different disciplines debases your opinion completely.

<<Do I deny that the occasional hoax has been perpetrated by scientists and later revealed to be such? Of course not.>>

That wasn’t my point. You had claimed evolutionary hoaxes were uncovered quickly. That assertion by you is false. Piltdown Man wasn’t revealed to be a hoax for 40 years and Ernst Haeckel’s fake embryo drawings were still taught in American schools long after they were revealed to be a hoax.

<<That you resort to these long discredited cases reveals the infirmity of your argument.>>

My reference to these cases was solely to demonstrate that your assertion that evolutionary hoaxes were uncovered quickly was false. Rather than admit you were wrong, you’re changing the subject.

<<That you are happy to accept magic and miracle on the basis of a single obviously biased and flimsy source>>

You still don’t seem to know that the Holy Bible is not one book, but 66 books written by 40 men on three continents over 1,500 years.

<<while blithely denying the evidence of a hundred years of research in several different disciplines debases your opinion completely.>>

And yet you can’t cite a single shred of evidence for macroevolution.

@avalanchethecat said
Again, what evidence do you have which is not scriptural?

Crickets? Tumbleweed?

And what evidence do you have at all for macroevolution? When I initially asked you that, you changed the subject to creationism - as evolutionists always do.

@avalanchethecat said
When confronted with tales of magic and miracle, the default position SHOULD be scepticism.

I have no problem with skepticism, but skepticism followed by refusal to do research is just lazy.

@pb1022 said
I have no problem with skepticism, but skepticism followed by refusal to do research is just lazy.

Give the name of one reputable palaeontologist or geneticist who agrees with you that evolution is not true.

Provide one piece of evidence which is not from scripture supporting the resurrection.

You can't do either of these things.

You believe 'witness' accounts from a highly dubious and obviously biased source, but reject the entire fossil record and a hundred years of scientific endeavour, presumably regarding the countless professionals who've spent their lives working in these fields as stupid, ignorant or involved in some vast, global conspiracy.

Your latest ridiculous suggestion, that 'research' could in some way show that evolution is false and that the resurrection is proven is yet more breathtaking arrogance from a position of wilful ignorance.

I don't know if you're a troll or just monumentally dim, but the entertainment value of watching you strut around like a pigeon on a chessboard has waned now.

@avalanchethecat said
Give the name of one reputable palaeontologist or geneticist who agrees with you that evolution is not true.

Provide one piece of evidence which is not from scripture supporting the resurrection.

You can't do either of these things.

You believe 'witness' accounts from a highly dubious and obviously biased source, but reject the entire fossil record and a hun ...[text shortened]... ut the entertainment value of watching you strut around like a pigeon on a chessboard has waned now.

You’re just repeating the same points over and over.

You won’t say why Scripture is unreliable.

You won’t (can’t) cite a single shred of evidence for macroevolution.

You seem to think saying evidence exists is the same as producing evidence. You seem to think saying a lot of scientists believe it is evidence.

You won’t acknowledge that the theory of evolution’s central claim - that one species turns into another species by random mutations and natural selection - does not follow the Scientific Method because it was neither observed nor demonstrated by an experiment.

And so we end our conversation where we started: You haven’t produced a single shred of evidence for macroevolution.

There was a lot of snark and insults, a lot of diversion and distraction. But no evidence. None.

@pb1022 said
You’re just repeating the same points over and over.

You won’t say why Scripture is unreliable.

You won’t (can’t) cite a single shred of evidence for macroevolution.

You seem to think saying evidence exists is the same as producing evidence. You seem to think saying a lot of scientists believe it is evidence.

You won’t acknowledge that the theory of evolution’s cen ...[text shortened]...

There was a lot of snark and insults, a lot of diversion and distraction. But no evidence. None.

Fine, you stick with magic, miracles and wilful ignorance.

@avalanchethecat said
Fine, you stick with magic, miracles and wilful ignorance.

And you stick with your evidence-free theory (which is really a religion) that has you only a few steps removed from a baboon 🍌 🦍

@pb1022 said
And you stick with your evidence-free theory (which is really a religion) that has you only a few steps removed from a baboon 🍌 🦍

You're not actually trolling are you? You genuinely believe all this stuff. Wow.

@avalanchethecat said
You're not actually trolling are you? You genuinely believe all this stuff. Wow.

You’d be surprised how many Christians are in the world. Far more Christians than atheists.

And you’d be surprised how many people, including many scientists, recognize the theory of evolution as the biggest scientific fraud of the 20th- and 21st centuries.

Folks in the 1800s can be forgiven for their ignorance in believing Darwin’s fairy tale.

But with revelations of how complex the cell and DNA are, that ignorance is no longer understandable.