Debunked: "There is no evidence for God"

[Idolater]

Darwin never pretended to have infallible absolute truth, and neither does anyone in any field of science today. You should try it.

I heard that Dawkins actually humbly and honestly admitted that he can't 100% positively rule out that God exists.

 

[Skeeter]

I heard that Dawkins actually humbly and honestly admitted that he can't 100% positively rule out that God exists.

Point in fact: he usually states that quite haughtily, and has had this acknowledgment since his was an undergraduate.

 

[marke]

Thanks for sharing.

If there is no evidence for God, then there is no evidence to say how the universe came to be purely by natural causes.
There is no real evidence to prove that life started from no life purely by natural causes.
There is no real evidence that life could evolve purely by natural causes.

All there is is waffle with no substance.

Secularists may not know it yet but they will never find evidence of God until God shows up to judge the earth for its wickedness and rebellion against His Word.

 

[marke]

At least, I think I am. But I don't think "I AM"
I know you capitalized "I AM", but God thinks, therefore I am: I AM, therefore I am.
But because God can think us into existence, we can think: I am, therefore I think.
I can't think myself into existence, but I can imagine, and then create something else, though not from nothing: I think, therefore [something else]

Devout evolutionists think the thought process was accidentally invented by unseen ignorant forces that cannot be scientifically measured or proven to exist.

 

[marke]

That's putting de cart before the horse

Nice play on words.

René Descartes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Descartes:
In his theology, he insists on the absolute freedom of God's act of creation. Refusing to accept the authority of previous philosophers, Descartes frequently set his views apart from the philosophers who preceded him. In the opening section of the Passions of the Soul, an early modern treatise on emotions, Descartes goes so far as to assert that he will write on this topic "as if no one had written on these matters before." His best known philosophical statement is "cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am"; French: Je pense, donc je suis), found in Discourse on the Method (1637; in French and Latin) and Principles of Philosophy (1644, in Latin).[note 4]

 

[marke]

Nice try, video. Common sense, and analogies are not evidence.

The evidence you seek is unavailable to those blinded by their rejection of God.

 

[marke]

Darwin's theory was constructed in the 19th century. The theory of evolution merges Darwin's ideas of natural selection with knowledge of genetics. Evolution is observed in the lab and in the field.

Looking at the fact that books in a library had an author and declaring anything with a beginning had a cause IS NOT evidence. BTW, The Big Bang was not the ultimate beginning. It was the beginning of the current stretching of the universe.

No. Monkeys did not evolve into evolutionist science professors or democrat politicians like some want to believe. That kind of evolution is scientifically impossible.

 

[marke]

That alone is not enough to make a claim about a specific LUCA. Combine it with the fossil record and information on the genome and then we see a convergence that represents highly compelling support.

See how this is evidence and contemplating a library is not?

Devout atheistic secularists have been desperately seeking some explanation for how life began on earth apart from God, and LUCA is one of their latest attempts. Like Miller and Urey the LUCA promoters claim the earth once had an inhospitable environment that accidentally spawned the 'Last Universal Common Ancestor' from non-living chemicals. Speculations and assumptions abound, but actual irrefutable scientific support or evidence is completely absent from their 'peer-reviewed' fictional science pronouncements.

 

[marke]

Of course, it's not. Example: hypotheses about the content of our genome have been tested. A bottom-up process would show some circuitous route to achieve results. The circuitousness would reflect earlier forms. Investigation has borne these hypotheses out. The human kidney is built, partially dismantled, and rebuilt a few rimes during development. The precursers mimic structures we see in other animals.

There is no evidence of the steps a creator took to make each form, and there is no evidence of the creators existence? Where is evidence of the materials and machinery of the creator? Even Santa leaves incriminating Claus marks.

What evidence do we have that unintelligent forces not observed or measured by science actually created life from dirt in an atmosphere lacking oxygen (dirt or chemicals that have no known secular origin) and then changed the earth's environment to allow for the first life forms to actually live and grow in an oxygenated environment? We have only the world of fiction science writers supported by rubber-stamping scientists with stronger allegiances to the dollar than to the truth.

 

[marke]

Darwin's ideas were a bit of an analogy but quite a bit beyond common sense. Analogies and common sense go into creating hypotheses, not conclusions. That is where the video fails.

Now, get beyond the history lesson and focus on the modern theory of evolution.

The modern theory of evolution is composed of broken bits and pieces of modified past assumptions and speculations that have been completely debunked by real scientific facts and evidence.

 

[marke]

Darwin never pretended to have infallible absolute truth, and neither does anyone in any field of science today. You should try it.

Darwin thought blacks were low-life savages destined to be exterminated by more advanced civilizations of humans. Such was the type of mind that stupidly imagined nothing created life on earth and then unseen and unmeasurable forces made huge changes in early life forms to create the various life forms we see today.

 

[marke]

I heard that Dawkins actually humbly and honestly admitted that he can't 100% positively rule out that God exists.

True. He stated that he can believe some supernatural force may have been involved in the creation of life on earth but that he absolutely rejected the idea that the force was the God of the Bible. Dawkins' scientific perspective is therefore unnaturally constricted by his unyielding commitment to reject all things God, no matter what the scientific evidence may show.

 

[marke]

Point in fact: he usually states that quite haughtily, and has had this acknowledgment since his was an undergraduate.

No amount of education or academic achievement or excellence will ever help any genius find out how life could possibly have begun on earth apart from God.

 

[Idolater]

True. He stated that he can believe some supernatural force may have been involved in the creation of life on earth but that he absolutely rejected the idea that the force was the God of the Bible. Dawkins' scientific perspective is therefore unnaturally constricted by his unyielding commitment to reject all things God, no matter what the scientific evidence may show.

He's just not much of a philosopher otherwise he would know that what he's trying to describe is already described by philosophers as a Person, above all.

Not a force.

 

[Skeeter]

The evidence you seek is unavailable to those blinded by their rejection of God.

Blinded by objectivity.

 

[marke]

Blinded by objectivity.

Evolutionists do not know how to be objective. Here is evidence of Dawkins' lack of objectivity.

Richard Dawkins and the God of the Old Testament

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniaca

strangenotions.com

So we've rejected the God of the Old Testament for Dawkins' atheistic account of evolution, only to find out that many of the traits Dawkins marked as repugnant are ensconced in natural selection (except that now, as a new and even more unfortunate kind of Job, we have no one against whom to complain).

 

[Skeeter]

Evolutionists do not know how to be objective. Here is evidence of Dawkins' lack of objectivity.

Richard Dawkins and the God of the Old Testament

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniaca

strangenotions.com

So we've rejected the God of the Old Testament for Dawkins' atheistic account of evolution, only to find out that many of the traits Dawkins marked as repugnant are ensconced in natural selection (except that now, as a new and even more unfortunate kind of Job, we have no one against whom to complain).

An unintentionally harsh process can be mastered and moderated. Intentional evil calling itself good is a blight that is hard to remove especially if we consider it omnipotent.

 

[marke]

An unintentionally harsh process can be mastered and moderated. Intentional evil calling itself good is a blight that is hard to remove especially if we consider it omnipotent.

Interminably denying God is an evil that will not be forgiven by God.

 

[Skeeter]

Interminably denying God is an evil that will not be forgiven by God.

If there was a just God, forgiveness for unbelieve under reasonable circumstances would be granted.

 

[Right Divider]

If there was a just God, forgiveness for unbelieve under reasonable circumstances would be granted.

You, on the other hand, have no excuse.