Matthew Le God

You failed to answer my question. Do you seriously not believe evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of life on the planet? It is an observable and testable fact.

A few minutes ago when I said I don't know what happened before the big bang and that 'before the big bang' may even be nonsensical as existence before time is a non sequitur. I have never said there is no god... I don't know if there is. However I can say with 100% confidence the god as described in the Bible does not exist as it is contradictory nature shows it is impossible for him to do so.

The Chinese living before, during and after the supposed flood shows it did not happen. The Bible claims everyone died, yet the Chinese and every other civilisation around the world did not die from the flood. Do you seriously not believe evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of life on the planet? It is an observable and testable fact.

Why is that hypocritical?

Copper

This is something you keep messing up on. You are coming from a starting point that there is a 'who'. That is not how scientific enquiry works, you follow the evidence to the answer, you don't start at an answer of a creator and work backwards (like you keep doing!). Science don't know what happened before the big bang, before the big bang my even be a nonsense as before time has no meaning. Why do you seem to have a problem with 'we don't know the answer'? Why is that unacceptable to you?

Salt-water fish lose water to their surroundings through osmosis, freshwater fish do not.

We are not talking about hundreds of thousands of years... the Bible says the world is 10,000 years old and the flood happened 4,300 years ago! The Chinese and other cultures around the world lived before, during and after the flood!

It doesn't require any faith. There is demonstrable and testable evidence for the Big Bang, there is not evidence for a divine creator apart from an old book. Evidence of Big Bang = red shift of galaxies, measurement of cosmic radiation, amount of light elements produced by BBN plus others Evidence of creator god = an old book

No, because they would be evidence in the fossil record and DNA sequence... and there isn't.

Have you considered that may be a nonsensical question and that it is impossible for anything to exist before time? Existence is temporal by definition.

How have you worked that out? People believe lots of things despite evidence against it. People are gullible.

Have you still not grasped that some aquatic life can not live in salt water and some can not live in freshwater? Yes, some can live in both, but many die if moved from the type they have evolved to live in.

Not simply 'my perspective', they are demonstrably 100% false either due to contradictions meaning it cannot be correct or evidence that shows it is false.

How have you determined the likelihood of one vs the other? Evolution by natural selection is an observed fact, it is not fanciful. The Bible claims man came from clay and woman came from a rib. That is fanciful and not supported by evidence.

All three of those questions highlight a flaw in Christianity. So it is not daft to raise them.

Raging Bull... do you think it is possible to be sad in heaven?

Quite possibly... but Raging Bull and a significant number of people on this planet believe it literally happened as described in the old book. Despite there both being a lack of evidence for it and lots of evidence against it. Why is it insulting to highlight flaws? If it really is the word of god then it should hold up to scrutiny... but it doesn't.

Darren

Which question have I skipped?

Raging bull claimed that in order to get the evidence required to believe in Christ you need to believe in Christ and it will be revealed to you. That is circular reasoning. So it is you that 'does not get it'... not me!

What questions do you think that provides water-tight answers to? Every single 'answer' to the questions is deeply flawed and does not hold up to scrutiny when applying a rational mind to it. Pick any of their answers and I'll explain why it is flawed.

There is no evidence there was ever a flood (apart from an old book). This is simple stuff Turkish, you are making the assumption there was a flood despite no evidence. Some sea life can live in salt water or freshwater, some sea life can only live in salt water, some sea life can only live in freshwater. There is no scenario where a global flood can see all three groups survive. It is not me being 'not very bright' on this Turkish... look closer to home! There is lots of evidence there was not a global flood... for example the Chinese & Egyptians existed before, during and after the flood is supposed to have occurred and were not wiped out!

So in order to believe in Christ he has to believe in Christ? Can you not see why that is flawed? It is circular reasoning!

Careful... don't make his head explode with one of the hundreds of contradictions in his religion!