Is Atheism Dead ?

@pb1022 said
Now who’s being obnoxious and patronizing? 😂

Nobody had to tell me about the prophecies. I read them myself because I’ve read the Holy Bible (and more than once.)

And the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament that Jesus Christ fulfilled are just some (a fraction) of the evidence for His Resurrection and that His claim of being the Messiah was true.

But, like I sa ...[text shortened]... ic on the theory because it justifies their atheism and is an indispensable part of their worldview.

You really don't need transitional fossils to demonstrate 'macroevolution'. Why do you think there are no human fossils in any contexts older than a couple of hundred thousand years? No hominid fossils older than a few million? No bears, cats, dogs, badgers, ferrets, horses, cows or deer older than a few tens of millions of years? Do you, along with evolution, reject the science of geology? Do you reject radiometric dating? Are you a 'young-earth christian?' Do you reject the genetic data which has confirmed, strengthened and in some cases corrected the evolutionary evidence of the fossil record?

If you destroyed all the books and all the accumulated knowledge of mankind tomorrow, your religion would be lost forever. It doesn't exist without scripture. The theory of evolution doesn't come from books and dogmatic scientists. It comes from the examination of the fossil record, the understanding of stratigraphy and the analysis of the genetic code present in the cells of every living thing. That you seem unable to grasp how overwhelming this evidence is says a great deal about your 'investigation' of the evidence for evolution.

And as for your 'messianic prophecies', well, a brief sojourn across the web even restricting one's reading to wholly christian sources shows how much disagreement and doubt there is in their regard. That's what you're proposing as incontrovertible evidence? Hiliarious.

And I make no apology for being obnoxious and patronizing to you, 'champ'. Affectionate nickname my donkey.

@avalanchethecat said
You really don't need transitional fossils to demonstrate 'macroevolution'. Why do you think there are no human fossils in any contexts older than a couple of hundred thousand years? No hominid fossils older than a few million? No bears, cats, dogs, badgers, ferrets, horses, cows or deer older than a few tens of millions of years? Do you, along with evolution, reject ...[text shortened]... ake no apology for being obnoxious and patronizing to you, 'champ'. Affectionate nickname my donkey.

Tell me your evidence for macroevolution.

That’s what this all boils down to.

@pb1022 said
Tell me your evidence for macroevolution.

That’s what this all boils down to.

Tell me how you think new species arise.

@avalanchethecat said
Tell me how you think new species arise.

So you decline to provide evidence for macroevolution?

Now do you see why I call the theory of evolution a religion? There’s no evidence to support it and it’s not based in science (doesn’t follow the Scientific Method.)

And genetics does not support the theory of evolution - at all. The more we learn about DNA and how complex cells are, which was unknown during Darwin’s time, the less credible the theory of evolution (which already lacked credibility) becomes.

<<If you destroyed all the books and all the accumulated knowledge of mankind tomorrow, your religion would be lost forever. It doesn't exist without scripture.>>

God exists with or without Scripture.

And God exists regardless of whether mankind believes He exists. If every person on the planet were an atheist, God would still exist.

Do you really believe God’s existence is dependent upon books or mankind acknowledging Him?

<<The theory of evolution doesn't come from books and dogmatic scientists. It comes from the examination of the fossil record, the understanding of stratigraphy and the analysis of the genetic code present in the cells of every living thing.>>

Yet no one knows how many transitional fossils exist. And genetic research shows just how impossible the theory of evolution is. The idea that cells became as complex as they are through blind chance (random mutations and natural selection) is preposterous.

<<That you seem unable to grasp how overwhelming this evidence is says a great deal about your 'investigation' of the evidence for evolution.>>

And it’s so “overwhelming” that you can’t cite any of it.

<<And as for your 'messianic prophecies', well, a brief sojourn across the web even restricting one's reading to wholly christian sources shows how much disagreement and doubt there is in their regard. That's what you're proposing as incontrovertible evidence? Hiliarious.>>

Why don’t you cite a specific Messianic prophecy and we’ll talk about it? Or do you want me to?

And Messianic prophecies are a mere fraction of the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

These experts in evaluating evidence investigated the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and concluded the Resurrection was true.

From allaboutthejourney.org:

Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered "the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure." Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system. He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts.

He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ's resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, Testimony of the Evangelists.

“Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.”

Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He's recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "World's Most Successful Advocate," with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II -- twice. Luckhoo declared:

“I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”

Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. As an atheist, he decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism.

Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ...

https://www.allaboutthejourney.org/the-case-for-christ.htm

@PB1022
Again, how do YOU think new species arise?

@avalanchethecat said
@PB1022
Again, how do YOU think new species arise?

That was your response to my asking you to provide evidence for macroevolution.

Why not just say you can’t provide evidence for macroevolution, despite the evidence being “overwhelming?”

@pb1022 said
That was your response to my asking you to provide evidence for macroevolution.

Why not just say you can’t provide evidence for macroevolution, despite the evidence being “overwhelming?”

See my post timed 05:58 above.

Do you believe the biblical account of creation?

@avalanchethecat said
See my post timed 05:58 above.

Do you believe the biblical account of creation?

You mean 04:58? I already replied to it.

And your refusal to providence for macroevolution and shifting the discussion to creationism is sadly what evolutionists always do. Evolutionists won’t discuss the theory of evolution because I think they realize how devoid of evidence it is.

But I’ll answer your question. Yes, I believe the creation account in Genesis.

@pb1022 said
You mean 04:58? I already replied to it.

And your refusal to providence for macroevolution and shifting the discussion to creationism is sadly what evolutionists always do. Evolutionists won’t discuss the theory of evolution because I think they realize how devoid of evidence it is.

But I’ll answer your question. Yes, I believe the creation account in Genesis.

So why do you think there are no human remains in any contexts older than a few hundred thousand years?

Why do you think there are no mammal remains to speak of in any pre-Tertiary contexts?

And you do, of course, realise that the only evidence in support of the creation account in Genesis is the creation account in Genesis?

@avalanchethecat

Again, how do YOU think new species arise?

If I were a professional biologist and my employment did not DEPEND on my towing the traditional line of Darwinian gradualism, I would explore abrupt changes in gametes as a possible source of new species.

If one was independently wealthy and not concerned with being black balled out of the field, I would probably see if cataclysmic events on earth could possibly suddenly trigger abrupt changes in organisms in their stages of embryonic development.

If someone reminded me that this sounds like Stephen Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" I would not mind admitting that it sounds something like that.

You asked. That's my honest answer today if I were a professional scientist who was able to branch away from the mainstream.

@sonship said
@avalanchethecat

Again, how do YOU think new species arise?

If I were a professional biologist and my employment did not DEPEND on my towing the traditional line of Darwinian gradualism, I would explore abrupt changes in gametes as a possible source of new species.

If one was independently wealthy and not concerned with being black balled out of ...[text shortened]... est answer today if I were a professional scientist who was able to branch away from the mainstream.

That's interesting, but it's contrary to the account given in Genesis, no?

I think you'd struggle to find employment nowadays which depended on a firm acceptance of a gradualist framework for evolutionary change. Further, mass extinction and subsequent selection to fill vacated niches has long been considered a very likely driver of rapid speciation. I don't know from where you gain the impression that the field is full of hidebound gradualists. It really isn't, and hasn't been for decades.

@avalanchethecat

That's interesting, but it's contrary to the account given in Genesis, no?

I don't know about that. I don't take Genesis as an exhaustive scientific explanation of these things. Its purpose I think is to establish that there is order in all living things and human beings are at the pinnacle of this order. God is a God of purpose, order, design, intention, with humanity as central to His purpose.

God is the source of everything including the living things which He planned to place under man's dominion. Man is connected to all other living things, yet at the same time man is unique in that he alone was created in God's image according to His likeness and assigned deputy authority over all that God made.

That is some of the main takeaways I receive from this splendid book. Had God wanted to tell us exhaustively the mechanics of all the universe it would have been written differently. Then maybe there would have been sixty books just to describe the nature of water.

I think you'd struggle to find employment nowadays which depended on a firm acceptance of a gradualist framework for evolutionary change. Further, mass extinction and subsequent selection to fill vacated niches has long been considered a very likely driver of rapid speciation. I don't know from where you gain the impression that the field is full of hidebound gradualists. It really isn't, and hasn't been for decades.

Of course as older people die off changes occur in academia. The impression I got that it was counter employment to not tow the line on Darwinian gradualism came from some one advising young students. The advise was that if they wanted a career certain things they should keep to themselves if they are outside of the mainstream academic accepted orthodoxy.

The person giving this advise as far as I know was simply a secularist professor giving good practical advise to incoming students of biology.

Please don't pretend that there is no pressure to conform to the status quo.