Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Evolution: The Skeptics False Deity [Spirituality & Religion]

The Truth is: skeptics, not all of them, are noted for talking like they 're making this non living, non thinking, non intelligent, source of their belief as if it were a god. Evolution has no wisdom, can't be reasoned with, has no compassion or love, and has no idea that these skeptics are worshiping it like a god. Judging from what they have told me in the past, evolution is very much like the wooden and stone ‘gods’ that men make to worship, to make awful sacrifices to, to get advice from, and to get it to do things for them. They're missing one important detail. First, their ‘god’ has to be living in order to think, reason, see, hear, smell, taste, and feel. It also has to be all knowing, all wise, all powerful, and all intelligent. Evolution has none of these attributes at all. Where did evolution , random chance, and natural selection get the wisdom, the knowledge, the intelligence, and the skills to produce the universe, with its stars and planets, especially earth that has life on it, and keep it running?
It seems like all these guys know how to do is ridicule, mock, and act worse than a jackass. No wonder they lose debates left and right. They have no evidence for their belief systems which they try to make scientific hoping that their pseudo science will make Yahweh go away and make them look intelligent at the same time. I choose to pray for them since their eyes and ears are closed to the truth of Yahweh, the one true God. True, I’ve met some pretty decent skeptics who are objective and are willing to listen to what believers have to say. But, these seem to be far and few in between. The rest are a shameful lot who only degrade themselves by trying to degrade us. It’s the only vice they can use since they can’t turn the lie of evolution into truth. It’ll never happen.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Where did God come from?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@LeopoldBloom From what I can gather from creationist mumblings, their god created itself... or some such piffle
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@LeopoldBloom [quote]Where did God come from?[/quote]

He was always here.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]From what I can gather from creationist mumblings, their god created itself... or some such piffle[/quote]

You don't listen very well do you.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 Then we might as well say that the universe was always here. Such a claim would be equally valid, and has the advantage of cutting out an unnecessary middle-man.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]Then we might as well say that the universe was always here.[/quote]

No. Scientists have already discovered that the universe was not always here. There was no universe until Yahweh spoke it into existence.
@GodSpeed63

Actually, all scientists have discovered is that the universe [i]as we know it[/i] had a point from which it expanded.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Pikachu [quote]Actually, all scientists have discovered is that the universe as we know it had a point from which it expanded.[/quote]

Interesting, @Pikachu.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Pikachu Yes, the current universe formed when a singularity (in which spacetime cannot occur) began expanding (initial inflation that settled into the expansion we see today), thus bringing [i]spacetime[/i] into existence by allowing relative motion
@GodSpeed63

It's important to be clear
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Pikachu [quote]It's important to be clear[/quote]

That is very true.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?
[i]Dr. Steven Novella[/i]

So when are we going to see some of that from you?
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]What do you think science is?[/quote]

Science is the study of Yahweh's creation.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 You beg the question [i]i.e.[/i] your answer merely assumes the truth of something that has not been proven, and without such proof, your definition fails.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]You beg the question i.e. your answer merely assumes the truth of something that has not been proven, and without such proof, your definition fails.[/quote]

Yahweh doesn't have to prove Himself to anybody.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans1:18-20

Again, the Word of God
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]Again, the Word of God[/quote]

Again, the self-serving arrogance of GodSpeed63
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]Again, the self-serving arrogance of GodSpeed63[/quote]

Arrogance does not affiliate with truth but only with lies. In other words, pathological liars, like yourself, are well known for their arrogance.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 Is that the truth that’s the truth simply because you say it’s the truth... a privilege that you so arrogantly reserve for yourself while denying the same privilege to others?

Does it follow that anything not said by you is a [i]de facto[/i] lie? Is that what you’re now saying?

Is that what brings you to accusing me of being a pathological liar? Because I say things that you have not said?

Of course we see that (as always) you are long on vague claims and woefully short on specifics. But then again, you don’t do specifics, do you?

No specific points

No specific examples

Always the same evasive vagueness
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]Is that what brings you to accusing me of being a pathological liar because I say things that you have not said?[/quote]

No. You say things that are not true. If you did, you wouldn't be a pathological liar. Again, you prove my point in your last posting.
@GodSpeed63 "He was always here."

In other words, you have no idea and are just talking out of your ass. "Always" refers to existing within the arrow of time, so according to you, your God is subservient to something else that exists outside of time.

If "God was always here," then the universe in some form "was always here." Occam's razor favors the simplest explanation; that's much simpler than invoking a magical being who brought the univese into existence through a process no one can explain.

If you disagree, please describe the specific mechanism whereby God created the universe. You guys have had thousands of years to research this; surely you have the answer by now.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@LeopoldBloom [quote]"He was always here."[/quote]

That's the truth.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 the universe was always here.

That’s the truth.

What need now for your little god?
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]the universe was always here. That’s the truth. What need now for your little god?[/quote]

Science has shown the the universe, like everything else had a beginning.

No, your quote is not the truth.

You're right, not need for a little god, the one true God, Yahweh, is big enough for the job.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 How many times do you need to hear this..?

The universe began expanding 13.7 billion years ago, which brought spacetime into play, so there’s no ‘before’ expansion. Whatever began to expand (the singularity) may well have ‘always’ been there. Any claim about the singularity is therefore [i]equally valid[/i] with any claim made about you want to make about gods.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]How many times do you need to hear this..?[/quote]

How many times do you need to hear the Truth before you believe?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 How many times do you need to see the evidence before you respond to it in a cogent, coherent, explanatory, and relevant manner (NB: ‘goddidit’ has none of those attributes)