Motivation of Atheists and Christ Deniers?

@plantermoo said
For humans to be animals, you’d have to explain the enormous difference between humans and animals in capabilities and accomplishments.

Humans have walked on the moon, built skyscrapers, invented technology that allows for instantaneous communication between different continents, composed symphonies, written literary masterpieces, invented technology that enables us to see distant galaxies and molecules, etc.

What animal is anywhere close to that?

You and I are a species of ape which has evolved to have a big brain, nothing more or less than that.

@indonesia-phil said
You and I are a species of ape which has evolved to have a big brain, nothing more or less than that.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

@suzianne said
I believe in both, so I feel like I should know the difference. I've said before that there's no proof for God. There can't be, because God gave us free will to believe in him or not. He wouldn't muck up that free will by giving us a cheat sheet full of proof that God exists. We are meant to come to belief in him through faith, not proof.

Science, on the other hand, is all about proof. Or at least the search for proof through experimentation.

What is it you are saying here that there is no "proof" for God, the evidence in all of creation does not point to God because that would be kin to proof, not faith. Do you believe that all faith is blind faith?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Well, duh.

Such evolution takes place over millions of years. If we are only going to believe things that occurred last Tuesday how are we to believe anything?

A statement of faith in evolution.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Science has advanced enough to say humanity didn't spring to life in a garden.

Catch up.

You think humanity sprang up where under a rock, in a pond, and you think science has shown you that?

@plantermoo said
Only she mistook the theory of evolution for science

The Theory of Evolution IS science, in one of its more pure forms.

@plantermoo said
For humans to be animals, you’d have to explain the enormous difference between humans and animals in capabilities and accomplishments.

Humans have walked on the moon, built skyscrapers, invented technology that allows for instantaneous communication between different continents, composed symphonies, written literary masterpieces, invented technology that enables us to see distant galaxies and molecules, etc.

What animal is anywhere close to that?

Humans ARE animals and this is the basis of "original sin". At a base level, it's who we are. The only thing elevating us above animals is that we have a soul, the corruption of which has caused all our problems. Imagine if animals were to gain intelligence without a morality. The difference is that we, as a species, have chosen to ignore or disobey God. "And that's when the trouble started," goes the joke.

@plantermoo said
It’s used to justify atheism. If you don’t want to call it a religion, fine. The theory of evolution is a faith-based belief that is used to justify atheism.

What? That's just stupid.

Evolution has nothing to do with atheism.

@fmf said

Personally, I think that, if there is a creator entity, then it probably set in motion the evolutionary process that developed the flora and fauna present on this planet.

Yes, exactly.

I see zero reason to believe the creator can't do any better than "poof"ing stuff into existence.

@plantermoo said
You’ve adopted a position with no evidence or justification to support it.

Do you buy the lie that the human genome and chimp genome are 99 percent similar and that only that 1 percent difference accounts for all of the anatomical and intellectual differences between humans and chimps?

You can look up the genomes yourself. It's not like it's some giant mystery.

This is known as "proof".

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Don't you mean the 'theory' of the resurrection of Jesus?

I see what you did there. 🙂

@plantermoo said
Are you aware that observation and experimentation are parts of the Scientific Method?

What observation and experiment backs up Darwin’s claim that one species evolved into an entirely separate species? And I’m using a common-sense definition of species - not one that permits 4,000 species of fruit flies and 17,500 species of butterflies.

And why are evolutionists so obnoxious when the theory of evolution is questioned or criticized?

Darwin didn't just pull the theory out of his ass, you know. He did the requisite work, despite your claims.

@plantermoo said
I believe the creation account in Genesis on faith.

That’s not how it’s supposed to work with the theory of evolution.

What you mean is that you accept the dumbed-down children's version presented in Genesis.

And you're darned right that's not how it's supposed to work with the Theory of Evolution. Scientific standards must be followed.

@plantermoo said
Because the Scientific Method includes observation and experimentation and Darwin did neither to support his claim that one species evolved into another ad infinitum. He observed changes within a species and made the wild and completely unsupported leap in saying what he observed accounted for the diversity of life we see today.

It’s ridiculous nonsense.

And your claims are not upheld by facts.

Science has facts and the scientific method. Religion has belief guided by faith.

They can both be true, but the difference is that the second is not guaranteed to you and your God-given free will allows you to believe what you want based on your magnitude of faith.

@kellyjay said
What is it you are saying here that there is no "proof" for God, the evidence in all of creation does not point to God because that would be kin to proof, not faith. Do you believe that all faith is blind faith?

No, I do not.

That would be as nonsensical as believing science theories without doing one's homework. The bar is just higher for science. That's all I'm saying.