# When Is An Evolution Scientist Ever Going To Admit The Other Side May Be Right?



## james bond (Jan 10, 2021)

If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.

3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
"All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in _Trends in Genetics_ evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."









						3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
					

All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of...




					www.icr.org


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 10, 2021)

At most we will find new information that changes our understanding of evolution. They'll never say creationism might be right because it's not. We weren't made out of dust by God.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 10, 2021)

I find it funny that creationists find evolution so far-fetched while believing people just popped out of thin air.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 10, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> I find it funny that creationists find evolution so far-fetched while believing people just popped out of thin air.



 The facts are, neither side can prove their side.


----------



## fncceo (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> *When Is An Evolution Scientist Ever Going To Admit The Other Side May Be Right?*



There is no other side.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 10, 2021)

pknopp said:


> The facts are, neither side can prove their side.



Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 10, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > The facts are, neither side can prove their side.
> ...



 Adaptation has a lot of evidence. Actual evolution not so much.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> 
> 3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
> "All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in _Trends in Genetics_ evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."
> ...


I think the problem faced by creationers is that their credibility is immediately suspect with articles from fundamentalist creation ministries.

Tell us about the “statement of faith” that is a part of the ICR club membership.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 10, 2021)

[sigh] ... yet another thread about creation vs nature ... by someone who know very little of either ... there's absolutely no substance in your citation in the OP ... let's see you experiement, what are the results ... otherwise it's just more Booger-Man arguments ...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> 
> 3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
> "All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in _Trends in Genetics_ evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."
> ...


Evolution is a fact:









						Why Human Evolution Is a Fact
					

Despite religious controversy in the U.S., the science is settled.




					www.psychologytoday.com


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.


I'm not sure how you quantify "too different".  I see you linked to the ICR site but there are no links to the actual article.  Got a link?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> 
> 3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
> "All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in _Trends in Genetics_ evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."
> ...


I noticed the ICR article (predictably) included “The Bible clearly states that humans were created uniquely in the image of God.”

Soytin-lee. Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.


----------



## Obejoekenobe (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> 
> 3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
> "All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in _Trends in Genetics_ evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."
> ...



"the other side MAY be right?"

You mean you don't know? 

You do know scientist work from empirical evidence and observation don't you?

When the Almighty comes down and announces to all, "Yup, I created the heavens and the Universe," I'll believe it.


----------



## Obejoekenobe (Jan 10, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Anomalism said:
> 
> 
> > I find it funny that creationists find evolution so far-fetched while believing people just popped out of thin air.
> ...



That million year old fossil record say's otherwise.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 10, 2021)

Obejoekenobe said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > Anomalism said:
> ...



 If you say so.


----------



## tyroneweaver (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> 
> 3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
> "All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in _Trends in Genetics_ evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."
> ...


A very famous person once said, "wisdom is justified by her children.


----------



## james bond (Jan 10, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > The facts are, neither side can prove their side.
> ...



No, there isn't.  For example, how much bananas do you eat?  If we came from monkeys, then we'd all be eating a lot of bananas.  I usually buy apples over bananas.  We'd also be able to climb trees naturally.  Most of us can't climb trees like monkeys can't walk bipedal.

It's not only the genetics do not fit, the behavior and innate skills do not match.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> No, there isn't.  For example, how much bananas do you eat?  If we came from monkeys, then we'd all be eating a lot of bananas.



Wow dude. You're fucking brilliant. You should take this observation to the scientists.


----------



## james bond (Jan 10, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Anomalism said:
> 
> 
> > I find it funny that creationists find evolution so far-fetched while believing people just popped out of thin air.
> ...



The creationists have science backing up their side.  For example, Dr. Louis Pasteur proved only life begets life by his swan neck experiment.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > Anomalism said:
> ...



 Neither can prove squat.


----------



## james bond (Jan 10, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > No, there isn't.  For example, how much bananas do you eat?  If we came from monkeys, then we'd all be eating a lot of bananas.
> ...



It's true.  Not only does my OP show we are not genetically related, we do not have the behavioral patterns.  Monkeys have to remain in cages in civilization for the most part or left in the jungle wild.  That is easily demonstrable.  Humans can remain free until they commit a crime.  Innocent before being proved guilty.

You're losing the argument badly.  Have you had your banana yet haha?


----------



## james bond (Jan 10, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Neither can prove squat.



I'm saying the evos can't prove anything.  It's not a fact.  The fact is they have no evidence.  OTOH, the creationists have our solar system and the Earth in just the right place, so we can survive.  We see intelligence behind the design of the natural world everywhere.  We can see such things didn't happen randomly, so it's evidence for a creator.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Jan 10, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Anomalism said:
> 
> 
> > pknopp said:
> ...


Thats a lie..........

the ancestors of yorkies are wolves


----------



## james bond (Jan 10, 2021)

Obejoekenobe said:


> You do know scientist work from empirical evidence and observation don't you?



Not the atheist scientists.  What empirical evidence and observation are you referring to?

So far, I've presented the genetic and behavioral evidence that we didn't evolve from monkeys.



Obejoekenobe said:


> When the Almighty comes down and announces to all, "Yup, I created the heavens and the Universe," I'll believe it.



That's fine.  It may be too late then and you get sent to the lake of fire.


----------



## james bond (Jan 10, 2021)

Hollie said:


> I noticed the ICR article (predictably) included “The Bible clearly states that humans were created uniquely in the image of God.”



We see that in much of our literature.



Hollie said:


> Soytin-lee. Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.



Proof positive.  The universe, earth, and everything in it is here and it says so in the "book."  How can one book answer all the questions we have today?


----------



## pknopp (Jan 10, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > Anomalism said:
> ...



 The ancestors of wolves are wolves. Has something ever adapted to their environment? Absolutely. When the fruit on the ground was hard to get only those with the longer necks could reach it so we got a giraffe. All the same the giraffe is still the same animal it was to start with but with a longer neck.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> 
> 3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
> "All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in _Trends in Genetics_ evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."
> ...



DNA and the genome support Darwin's hypothesis;  there is no scientific support for Adam and Eve.









						Genetics
					






					humanorigins.si.edu


----------



## Manonthestreet (Jan 10, 2021)

Obejoekenobe said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> ...


He came down once and walked among men, when he comes again you will believe too late


----------



## james bond (Jan 10, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> ...



Are you into biology?

Yes, but that was BEFORE the finding of 3-D study of the human genome (actually looking at a 3-dimensional structure).

"All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in _Trends in Genetics_ evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse.1

One of the best ways to empirically understand the 3-D configuration of chromosomes in the nucleus of the cell is to define topologically associating domains (TADs) in the DNA sequence. TADs are characterized as regions whose DNA sequences preferentially contact and interact with each other in association with specific cell types and biological functions. TADs were first discovered in 2012 using newly developed chromosome conformation analysis techniques.2 In mammals, the median TAD length is about 900,000 DNA letters (bases) long—a sizeable stretch of DNA that typically contains multiple genes and many regulatory switches and control features.3

One important aspect of 3-D genome structure has to do with the epigenetic modification of proteins called _histones_ that the DNA is wrapped around. A 2011 study showed that a specific type of histone modification had only about a 70% overlap or similarity between humans and chimps.4 Remarkably, another study in 2012 showed that humans had about a 70% similarity for the same feature with mice.5 In other words, humans were as different to mice as they were to chimps for this particular genome conformation metric "


----------



## Astrostar (Jan 10, 2021)

Only when you and yours prov


james bond said:


> If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> 
> 3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
> "All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in _Trends in Genetics_ evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."
> ...


Only when you and yours provide EVIDENCE that there was/is a "god."  It's the same as with Trump's"election fraud;" you just can't spout


james bond said:


> If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> 
> 3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
> "All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in _Trends in Genetics_ evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."
> ...


When you come up with EVIDENCE that a "god" exists.  Merely spouting religious clap trap isn't enough.  It's just like Trump and his "election fraud."  He has no evidence, merely bull crap that, according to Goebbels, if spouted enough, becomes fact (to the stupid.)


----------



## james bond (Jan 10, 2021)

Astrostar said:


> Only when you and yours provide EVIDENCE that there was/is a "god." It's the same as with Trump's"election fraud;" you just can't spout



You're just avoiding the topic.  Evolution cannot prove squat.  It's just a scientific argument based on circular reasoning and long time.

OTOH, the evidence for creation is plentiful.  Besides the at least 30% difference found between the ape and human genone, the fact that the Earth, universe, and everything in it is here.  We are the only intelligent living beings on the planet.  No where else.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > Anomalism said:
> ...


ID creationers do not have science “backing up” their side. ID creationers do no research and do not publish in peer reviewed science journals because supernaturalism is not subject to science investigation.

Pasteur never showed that life begets other life. It was explained to you earlier. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently _spontaneously_ arise in _complex f_orm from non-life in nature.


----------



## james bond (Jan 10, 2021)

pknopp said:


> The ancestors of wolves are wolves. Has something ever adapted to their environment? Absolutely. When the fruit on the ground was hard to get only those with the longer necks could reach it so we got a giraffe. All the same the giraffe is still the same animal it was to start with but with a longer neck.



This is what I mean.  We can see the changes from one change in species to another.  We can't see that with apes to humans such as no monkeys are bipedal.  Macroevolution is  basically a hypothesis or best guess and that's it.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed the ICR article (predictably) included “The Bible clearly states that humans were created uniquely in the image of God.”
> ...



Your claim that the Bible is true because it’s what you want to believe is not an argument.

The Bible does not answer all the questions we have today. Such a statement is really quite disturbing.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > The ancestors of wolves are wolves. Has something ever adapted to their environment? Absolutely. When the fruit on the ground was hard to get only those with the longer necks could reach it so we got a giraffe. All the same the giraffe is still the same animal it was to start with but with a longer neck.
> ...



 That's fine and I made the argument so I will not argue with you but you aren't going to have a better time proving that which you condemn.


----------



## konradv (Jan 10, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Anomalism said:
> 
> 
> > pknopp said:
> ...


What’s the difference?


----------



## pknopp (Jan 10, 2021)

konradv said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > Anomalism said:
> ...



 I explained that already. Read further.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > The ancestors of wolves are wolves. Has something ever adapted to their environment? Absolutely. When the fruit on the ground was hard to get only those with the longer necks could reach it so we got a giraffe. All the same the giraffe is still the same animal it was to start with but with a longer neck.
> ...


The fossil record of ape-like ancestors to humans is really quite well documented. What does the Bible explain about bipedalism? You wrote earlier, “How can one book answer all the questions we have today?” suggesting the Bible is the only book one needs to read. 

Identify where the Bible contains the word “bipedal” and identify where the Bible addresses bipedalism.

Lacking a science vocabulary, you confuse terms you don’t understand. Macroevolution, (you confuse that term with speciation), is well documented with many examples provided to you previously.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 10, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> At most we will find new information that changes our understanding of evolution. They'll never say creationism might be right because it's not. We weren't made out of dust by God.




Ashes to ashes dust to dust


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 10, 2021)

pknopp said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > pknopp said:
> ...


you never explain shit.


----------



## james bond (Jan 10, 2021)

pknopp said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > pknopp said:
> ...



You made the argument for microevolution and I agreed with you, but we do not see the same with macroevolution.  I'll just assume you see my POV (plus I got the OP finding now).


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> *When Is An Evolution Scientist Ever Going To Admit The Other Side May Be Right?*



Why would they do something like that?

Just because science continues to gain information? 

That's what science is supposed to do!

They've still got no evidence of creationism at all.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



 I agree that neither side can prove their position.


----------



## konradv (Jan 10, 2021)

pknopp said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > pknopp said:
> ...


Rhetorical question. There is no difference.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 10, 2021)

Obejoekenobe said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > Anomalism said:
> ...


----------



## pknopp (Jan 10, 2021)

konradv said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



 Of course there is.


----------



## konradv (Jan 10, 2021)

pknopp said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > pknopp said:
> ...


Adaptation is evolution


----------



## pknopp (Jan 10, 2021)

konradv said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



 No it isn't. If it was the same it wouldn't be called something different. To evolve one would have to adapt and we have plenty examples of that but to have evolved into something else, we have none.

 The house pets ancestors were wolves but all are still canines. There is NO proof that the house pets ancestors were ever something else.


----------



## james bond (Jan 10, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Why would they do something like that?



Because we want to know _the truth_ about human origins.  Not just the fake evolution science.  Rye Catcher linked to the Smithsonian and they do not tell the whole story.  They lie.  They spent an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars and lied.

"The purpose of this exhibit on the origin of man is not only to indoctrinate children and adults in evolution, but also atheism!

The National Museum of Natural History, funded by donations and tax money, recently opened its new exhibition on human origins. The NMNH in Washington D.C. is one of the famed Smithsonian Museums."









						Smithsonian Exhibition—Deception and Atheism
					

The purpose of this exhibit on the origin of man is not only to indoctrinate children and adults in evolution, but also atheism!




					answersingenesis.org
				






Crepitus said:


> They've still got no evidence of creationism at all.



This is further evidence you believe in the bullshit of atheism.  The evidence is for creation not abiogenesis.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Why would they do something like that?
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Why would they do something like that?
> ...



Your conspiracy theories are over the top loopy.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jan 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Yawn.


----------



## james bond (Jan 10, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...



The Bible supports Adam and Eve.  Regardless, I use science to explain how humans are not related to monkeys.

I asked for the transitional fossils and you provide none.  There are none for evolution of monkeys to humans.  The skulls you have of ancient humans are those of more recent humans.  We have people with skulls like that today.


----------



## james bond (Jan 10, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



The Smithsonian spent a great amount of money on _that_ exhibit.  It's the exhibit for the  Hall of Human Origins and it's all a lie.  There are no six to eight million years of Earth history.  It's incredible that a science group can actually believe their own BS.

"The National Museum of Natural History, funded by donations and tax money, recently opened its new exhibition on human origins. The NMNH in Washington D.C. is one of the famed Smithsonian Museums.

To build this exhibition, called the Hall of Human Origins, the Smithsonian spent almost as much money as we did to build the entire 70,000 square-foot, high-tech Creation Museum near Cincinnati!"

...

"In a CNSNews report,1 with a headline that included the words _Devoid of References to God_, we read the following about the new exhibit:



> The stages of human development also are highlighted, but visitors will not find any references to God, creationism, or pre-natal existence. The exhibit’s Web site says fossils “provide evidence that modern humans evolved from earlier humans.”


The report continues:



> . . . Richard Potts, curator and director of the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program, said the Smithsonian Institution has a “deep commitment to the study of evolution” and that the new permanent exhibit will answer “profound questions” about human origins.





> When asked by CNSNews.com why the exhibit does not include any reference to God or address the debate—even in scientific circles—about Darwinian evolution, Potts replied that the Natural History Museum ‘is a science museum, and all the objects that a museum can possibly display about the origins of humans have been uncovered in the context of doing the science of evolution.’


Note two very telling admissions here:

Regarding his quote “. . . all the objects that a museum can possibly display about the origins of humans have been uncovered . . .” well, that is simply not true. “All” that can be “possibly displayed”? What about the Bible’s account of human origins? The Bible is a document that claims to be the Word of the Creator concerning how humans came to be on this planet.

Why won’t Potts and his researchers include that? Well, they have arbitrarily defined _science_ (which means “knowledge”) as having nothing to do with God. They will only allow explanations according to their view of naturalism, the religion of atheism.

It becomes even clearer in the second admission:

. . . in the context of doing the science of evolution.
Evolution, in the Darwinian sense (using naturalism and no supernaturalism), is their bottom-line presupposition. It’s used to interpret the evidence of the fossils they display as they attempt to reconstruct the unobservable past.

In an interview with the _Washington Post_,2 Potts was asked whether creationism would be found in the Hall of Human Origins. He replied: “There’s no Adam and Eve here.” He continued: “If you believe that the world—and man—was created in seven days, and that it’s only thousands of years old, you might have a little problem with an exhibition that talks about a process of 6 million to 8 million years.”

Later in the _Post_ article, when asked what he hopes visitors will take away from the exhibition, Potts replied: “A sense of the sacred.” That almost sounds as if he wants the hall to be a kind of a temple, where visitors can be worshipful of the fossils of their apelike ancestors!"


----------



## james bond (Jan 10, 2021)

The six to eight million years the modern spokesperson for the Smithsonian claims is since Darwin's time.  Before that, we didn't know how long we were here, but many thought it was around 6,000 years according to AMNH.

"Before Darwin was born, most people in England accepted certain ideas about the natural world as given. Species were not linked in a single "family tree." They were unconnected, unrelated, and unchanged since the moment of their creation. And Earth itself was thought to be so young--perhaps only 6,000 years old--that there would not have been time for species to change. In any case, people were not part of the natural world; they were above and outside it."

Thus, what you were taught in _public_ school isn't that old and goes against what was taught in the past.









						The World Before Darwin | AMNH
					

Before Darwin was born, most people in England accepted certain ideas about the natural world as given. Species were unconnected, unrelated, and unchanged since the moment of their creation. Earth...




					www.amnh.org


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Evolution is a fact:



LOL!   You don't really know that to be true.  I've observed the actual and underlying impetus of your philosophical conviction in your posts over the years.  You fail to grasp that the hypothesis of evolution is predicated on metaphysical naturalism—a circularity of reasoning, begging the question—that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of strictly natural cause-and-effect speciation over geological time; in other words, evolution is necessarily true because metaphysical naturalism is necessarily true, an article of faith that is, of course, scientifically unfalsifiable.  Scientifically trained biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis believe that naturalism must be true because the speciation of adaptive radiation is true and because the paleontological record entails the chronologically sequential appearances of species of a generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.

_Hocus Pocus_ 

Adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, which is reductive, natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow of a cyclically limited range to the taxonomic level of genus is all we actually observe.  The putative evolutionary branching and transmutational speciation from a common ancestry is not and cannot be observed.  Not now, not ever!

But the sheep who are consciously unaware of their metaphysical bias, incessantly appeal to authority, spout slogans and _ad hominem_, and typically know little to nothing about biology go "bah, bah, bah."


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.



Just to be sure.  You're not suggesting that the continuous existence of apes falsifies evolution, are you?  Also, all apes, indeed, all primates, are capable of bipedal locomotion.  Humans are the only bipeds proper.  That's all.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> DNA and the genome support Darwin's hypothesis;  there is no scientific support for Adam and Eve.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The assertion that genetics entail "no scientific support for Adam and Eve" is nonsensical and, essentially, meaningless, pseudoscientific gibberish.

The article you cited goes to the genetically negligible difference between humans and other primates in terms of percentile.  This mostly pertains to genetic content and much less to genetic sequencing and structure.  The difference in genetic sequencing and structure is significantly different, resulting in an exponentially tremendous difference in terms of intelligence and adaptability  

In any event, why, precisely, do you believe that this genetic similarity in terms of content necessarily supports the hypothesis of evolution, much less the metaphysical presupposition thereof?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 12, 2021)

*When Is An Evolution Scientist Ever Going To Admit The Other Side May Be Right?*


When is the side promoting supernatural / magical gods going to demonstrate those gods? There are lots of gods invented by many societies so the thread title is actually aimed at religious people.

It is the process of science that explores and discovers. Now, it’s possible that science could be stymied and could hit the wall so-to-speak at finding a purely _natural_ cause but that still wouldn’t prove a _supernatural_ causation and it still wouldn’t prove god(s). How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or do we assiduously test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny and demand they be accountable at some level?

In a historical sense, the ''correct'' gods were often the gods whose followers had the largest armies, caliber of weapons and volume of fire.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

Hollie said:


> When is the side promoting supernatural / magical gods going to demonstrate those gods? There are lots of gods invented by many societies so the thread title is actually aimed at religious people.
> 
> It is the process of science that explores and discovers. Now, it’s possible that science could be stymied and could hit the wall so-to-speak at finding a purely _natural_ cause but that still wouldn’t prove a _supernatural_ causation and it still wouldn’t prove god(s). How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or do we assiduously test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny and demand they be accountable at some level?
> 
> In a historical sense, the ''correct'' gods were often the gods whose followers had the largest armies, caliber of weapons and volume of fire.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > When is the side promoting supernatural / magical gods going to demonstrate those gods? There are lots of gods invented by many societies so the thread title is actually aimed at religious people.
> ...


And the religious extremist is left to his usual tactic of obfuscation.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

fncceo said:


> There is no other side.



Yours is the notion of metaphysical naturalism.  _Zoom_  Right over your head.  Where's the scientific evidence for that?

_crickets chirping_


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

Hollie said:


> And the religious extremist is left to his usual tactic of obfuscation.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

Astrostar said:


> When you come up with EVIDENCE that a "god" exists.  Merely spouting religious clap trap isn't enough.  It's just like Trump and his "election fraud."  He has no evidence, merely bull crap that, according to Goebbels, if spouted enough, becomes fact (to the stupid.)



The manifest evidence for God's existence is the existence of the Universe in and of itself.  But then atheists are hysterically irrational.  Atheists believe in magic:  that actual infinities are possible or that the physical world came into existence sans a sufficient cause, that is, that it caused itself to exist . . . before it existed or came into existence from an ontological nothingness.  Duh.

Go figure.

LOL!


----------



## Hollie (Jan 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > DNA and the genome support Darwin's hypothesis;  there is no scientific support for Adam and Eve.
> ...


Metaphysical (you obviously mean non-scientific) suppositions are relegated to non-critical thinking types who don't understand the difference between the discipline of science vs. apologetics for fear and superstition.

It's profoundly disturbing to the hyper-religious to be told that insofar as the world around us is of naturally occurring circumstances that, science remains our best tool for investigating it. The methodology used by investigators employing science is presently the best that life on earth has yet devised. In contrast, any attempt to see the origin of our natural selves through the competing views of various gods, religions and the imposition of fear, are doomed to fail. None of the past or currently existing human-configured religions or the gods commanding those religions make any case for the origin of the universe or the biological life that has developed. None of the past or presently configured gods have ever materially contributed to human understanding of nature or a place in it.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > And the religious extremist is left to his usual tactic of obfuscation.
> ...


The religious extremist has thoroughly devolved to a petulant child who has dropped to the floor in a kicking, screeching tantrum.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

konradv said:


> Adaptation is evolution



LOL!  Behold the pseudoscientific slogan speak of know-nothing laymen.

Adaptive radiation  *≠* evolutionary transmutation.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

Hollie said:


> The religious extremist has thoroughly devolved to a petulant child who has dropped to the floor in a kicking, screeching tantrum.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> They've still got no evidence of creationism at all.







Meanwhile, back to reality, the Universe, which began to exist in the finite past, exists.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> > When you come up with EVIDENCE that a "god" exists.  Merely spouting religious clap trap isn't enough.  It's just like Trump and his "election fraud."  He has no evidence, merely bull crap that, according to Goebbels, if spouted enough, becomes fact (to the stupid.)
> ...


Actually, the manifest failure of the argument appealing to fear and superstition is that as science explores and discovers, fear and superstition are replaced by an understanding of natural processes. 

Not so long ago, the manifest evidence for the gods was nothing more than swords and knives at the necks and bellies of humans. The churches imposed their gods on the population with ruthless punishment for any contrary discourse, Not so long ago in human history, people cowered in fear at a solar eclipse believing the gods were angry. People would sacrifice both humans and animals to appease the angry gods. Not so long ago in human history, it was impossible to conceive of a world not managed/controlled by one or more gods, and now, it is apparent that the gods don't control anything we can identify. Not so long ago, It was inconceivable that there were not angels pushing the planets and the gods opened flowers and so on-- but now it is natural to know that these things have non-divine underpinnings. We are evolving! And we are evolving away from the fear and superstition based tenets of religious dogma.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The religious extremist has thoroughly devolved to a petulant child who has dropped to the floor in a kicking, screeching tantrum.
> ...


The religious extremist is thoroughly incapable of presenting a coherent argument.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > They've still got no evidence of creationism at all.
> ...


Wow. That's, you know, deep. The universe exists! Not afraid of controversy those religious extremists.

Today is Tuesday! I hope everyone can appreciate how profound that is.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> The manifest evidence for God's existence is the existence of the Universe in and of itself.  But then atheists are hysterically irrational.  Atheists believe in magic:  that actual infinities are possible or that the physical world came into existence sans a sufficient cause, that is, that it caused itself to exist . . . before it existed or came into existence from an ontological nothingness.  Duh.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> LOL!





Hollie said:


> Actually, the manifest failure of the argument appealing to fear and superstition is that as science explores and discovers, fear and superstition are replaced by an understanding of natural processes.
> 
> Not so long ago, the manifest evidence for the gods was nothing more than swords and knives at the necks and bellies of humans. The churches imposed their gods on the population with ruthless punishment for any contrary discourse, Not so long ago in human history, people cowered in fear at a solar eclipse believing the gods were angry. People would sacrifice both humans and animals to appease the angry gods. Not so long ago in human history, it was impossible to conceive of a world not managed/controlled by one or more gods, and now, it is apparent that the gods don't control anything we can identify. Not so long ago, It was inconceivable that there were not angels pushing the planets and the gods opened flowers and so on-- but now it is natural to know that these things have non-divine underpinnings. We are evolving! And we are evolving away from the fear and superstition based tenets of religious dogma.





Meanwhile, back to reality, the Universe, which began to exist in the finite past, exists.  LOL!


----------



## Hollie (Jan 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > The manifest evidence for God's existence is the existence of the Universe in and of itself.  But then atheists are hysterically irrational.  Atheists believe in magic:  that actual infinities are possible or that the physical world came into existence sans a sufficient cause, that is, that it caused itself to exist . . . before it existed or came into existence from an ontological nothingness.  Duh.
> ...


Heh! The religious extremist is reduced to stuttering and mumbling.


----------



## NoNukes (Jan 12, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Anomalism said:
> 
> 
> > I find it funny that creationists find evolution so far-fetched while believing people just popped out of thin air.
> ...


We know the world is older than 5,000 years.


----------



## NoNukes (Jan 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> Anomalism said:
> 
> 
> > pknopp said:
> ...


Some people have these physical attributes


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> No, there isn't.  For example, how much bananas do you eat?  If we came from monkeys, then we'd all be eating a lot of bananas.  I usually buy apples over bananas.  We'd also be able to climb trees naturally.  Most of us can't climb trees like monkeys can't walk bipedal.
> 
> It's not only the genetics do not fit, the behavior and innate skills do not match.



Actually, monkeys are capable of bipedal locomotion on vertical surfaces in the wild and can be trained to walk bipedally on horizontal surfaces.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 12, 2021)

NoNukes said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > Anomalism said:
> ...



 Absolutely. Not what we were discussing though.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 12, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Absolutely. Not what we were discussing though.



Creationism is extremely unlikely given what we do know. Don't underestimate the limits of your own knowledge either. The vast, vast majority of scientists believe evolution to be real.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 12, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely. Not what we were discussing though.
> ...



 Which I'm not arguing.


----------



## NoNukes (Jan 12, 2021)

pknopp said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > pknopp said:
> ...


That is what the Creationists believe.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 12, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Which I'm not arguing.



If God created life it would have to be single-celled life that evolved. I think we understand physics well enough to say for sure that people didn't just pop into existence.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 12, 2021)

NoNukes said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



_Some_ do. Many do not.


----------



## pknopp (Jan 12, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > Which I'm not arguing.
> ...



 Quite possible. Maybe some day, someone will prove it.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Creationism is extremely unlikely given what we do know. Don't underestimate the limits of your own knowledge either. The vast, vast majority of scientists believe evolution to be real.



LOL!  Nonsense.  There's absolutely nothing in the available evidence that falsifies creationism proper.  Evolutionists do not know that metaphysical naturalism, the underlying assumption for their interpretation of the evidence, is true.  They assume it's true and their conclusion circularly follows.  Why do _you_ believe that metaphysical naturalism is true?


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > They've still got no evidence of creationism at all.
> ...


Your opinion isn't proof of jack squat.

Sorry for your luck.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

NoNukes said:


> We know the world is older than 5,000 years.



Nonsense.  Not all creationists believe that and creationism proper asserts no such thing.  By the way, the number you're looking for is 6,000 to 10,000 years, not 5,000, depending on what version of Ussherian hermeneutics the YEC imposes on the biblical text.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Your opinion isn't proof of jack squat.
> 
> Sorry for your luck.



Your opinion doesn't refute jack squat.

Make an argument next time.  Were you dropped on your head as a child?  Sorry for your luck.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> If God created life it would have to be single-celled life that evolved.



LOL!  Why?



Anomalism said:


> I think we understand physics well enough to say for sure that people didn't just pop into existence.



What do the laws of physics have to do with the creation of the physical world and life?  Please be specific and start your explication for how the physical world came into existence in the finite past, which we know to be a fact per logic, mathematics, astrophysics and cosmology.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Your opinion isn't proof of jack squat.
> ...


There's your argument.






That's 135,000,000 years old.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> There's your argument.
> 
> View attachment 441947
> 
> That's 135,000,000 years old.



So your argument is that a fossil demonstrating the existence of an animal that has gone extinct exists?  Uhhhhhh, okey dokey.   Now, beyond that, what's your argument, precisely, and for what, precisely?


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > There's your argument.
> ...






You have a nice day.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Anomalism said:
> 
> 
> > Creationism is extremely unlikely given what we do know. Don't underestimate the limits of your own knowledge either. The vast, vast majority of scientists believe evolution to be real.
> ...


You fail to realize that you’re making a rather nonsensical claim suggesting that supernatural creationism cannot be falsified.

You fail to understand a rather simple premise which is: supernatural creationism, whether ID’iot creationism, “the gawds did it”, Biblical creationism or whatever appeals to magic and supernaturalism you claim, in any form, is not science. Appeals to a supernatural being, or the “designed by the gods” concept you dump into a science discussion are pointless in any science discussion because creationers exclude their ideas from the domain of science. Gods, magic and supernaturalism are neither testable nor falsifiable. Those two criteria are very _basic_ criteria to the scientific method.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> There's your argument.
> 
> View attachment 441947
> 
> That's 135,000,000 years old.





Ringtone said:


> So your argument is that a fossil demonstrating the existence of an animal that has gone extinct exists?  Uhhhhhh, okey dokey.   Now, beyond that, what's your argument, precisely, and for what, precisely?





Crepitus said:


> You have a nice day.



Behold the mindless imbeciles of evolution who cannot grasp the fact that their dogma is predicated on the scientifically indemonstrable apriority of metaphysical naturalism.   Oh, look, a very old fossil of an organism that has gone extinct exists, therefore, evolution!





Because we’re here. It must have happened. That’s called circular reasoning, friends, based on a prior commitment to naturalism that won’t be shaken by the facts.​​Which proves that this is not about science, it’s about philosophy.    —Greg Koukl​


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

Hollie said:


> You fail to realize that you’re making a rather nonsensical claim suggesting that supernatural creationism cannot be falsified.
> 
> You fail to understand a rather simple premise which is: supernatural creationism, whether ID’iot creationism, “the gawds did it”, Biblical creationism or whatever appeals to magic and supernaturalism you claim, in any form, is not science. Appeals to a supernatural being, or the “designed by the gods” concept you dump into a science discussion are pointless in any science discussion because creationers exclude their ideas from the domain of science. Gods, magic and supernaturalism are neither testable nor falsifiable. Those two criteria are very _basic_ criteria to the scientific method.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You fail to realize that you’re making a rather nonsensical claim suggesting that supernatural creationism cannot be falsified.
> ...



I tried to help you understand that falsifying magic and supernaturalism is simply not an endeavor available to science. 

You really should consider that your arguments for gods really belong in the religious forums.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 13, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Behold the mindless imbeciles of evolution who cannot grasp the fact that their dogma is predicated on the scientifically indemonstrable apriority of metaphysical naturalism.   Oh, look, a very old fossil of an organism that has gone extinct exists, therefore, evolution!



Behold the petulant arrogance of a person that's actually willing to call believers of evolution "mindless imbeciles" while lacking the tools to ever perceive the magnitude of their own ignorance enough to have a reasonable debate. When you make ridiculous claims and demand that they are fact despite having no evidence to back them up, one can't do much but roll their eyes at you. I actually feel bad for you. What is it about your life that makes you so desperate for God that you're willing to come here and constantly bullshit yourself and others?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 13, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Behold the petulant arrogance of a person that's actually willing to call believers of evolution "mindless imbeciles" while lacking the tools to ever perceive the magnitude of their own ignorance enough to have a reasonable debate. When you make ridiculous claims and demand that they are fact despite having no evidence to back them up, one can't do much but roll their eyes at you. I actually feel bad for you. What is it about your life that makes you so desperate for God that you're willing to come here and constantly bullshit yourself and others?



False!  I wrote:   Behold the mindless imbeciles of evolution _who_ cannot grasp the fact that their dogma is predicated on the scientifically indemonstrable apriority of naturalism.  Not all evolutions are as stupid as the typical true believer on social media.  Unlike the imbeciles, they readily understand the nature of their underlying assumption regarding reality.  Thus, ultimately right or wrong, they actually own their own minds and beliefs as persons who have thought things through.

I have yet to encounter a true believer on this board in all these years who grasps the actual reason they think evolution is true.  It's hilarious.  As one who failed to follow the actual point of my observation, you don't seem to be consciously aware of the actual reason you think evolution is true either.

Why do _you_ think the scientifically indemonstrable apriority of naturalism is true?  If you cannot grasp the thrust of that question or you cannot answer it, then you are one of the imbeciles.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 13, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Behold the petulant arrogance of a person that's actually willing to call believers of evolution "mindless imbeciles" while lacking the tools to ever perceive the magnitude of their own ignorance enough to have a reasonable debate. When you make ridiculous claims and demand that they are fact despite having no evidence to back them up, one can't do much but roll their eyes at you. I actually feel bad for you. What is it about your life that makes you so desperate for God that you're willing to come here and constantly bullshit yourself and others?



No evidence?!

Let me help you grasp the actual order of your very own “reasoning” that utterly escapes you and every other evolutionist I’ve encountered on US Message Board.

Responding to another, *Steven_R* sarcastically writes:

Well, at some point humans branched off and two of our chromosomes fused. . . . So, whatever the common ancestor we and chimps had evolved into two separate species of _Homo sapiens_ and _Pan troglodytes_.​​Either that or God fused two chromosomes in our genome together in an attempt to trick us into thinking we're related to chimps.​
Note that this imbecile is _unwittingly_ presupposing evolution all the while in his premise!

Earlier he writes:

When we finish with why evolution is a lie, our next topic will be why the Sun really goes around the Earth, and that topic will be followed by a presentation entitled "The Four Humours & You: How to Keep in Balance for Fun, Profit, & Health." Make sure you stay to the end when we discuss how dental cavities are caused by tiny worms.​
I then invite this braying jackass to consider something that has never occurred to him.  I write:

I have a better idea!​​Let's discuss why _you_ believe naturalism, on which the fanciful hypothesis of evolution is predicated, is necessarily true. Then we can discuss how you, _not God_, tricked yourself into interpreting the available evidence per the gratuitous insertion of an apriority that circularly begs the question and yields the mathematical monstrosity of a biological history entailing an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​​Then you might finally perceive the actual reason that biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis believe it to be true, that is, because they presuppose their interpretation of the evidence in their metaphysical premise as they observe that adaptive radiation occurs and that the paleontological record demonstrates that species appeared on Earth in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety.​​The gratuitous apriority is not observed. It's an assumption and scientifically unfalsifiable.​​_Hocus Pocus_​​Make sure you stay to the end when I show you the potentiality that has never occurred to you in all of your unexamined life, namely, that biological history entails a series of creative events per a systematically upgraded and transcribed genetic motif of common design imbued by God to adaptively radiate per the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow over geological time.​​Don’t miss out on the fact that a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation to the taxonomic level of genus is all that we actually observe. The putative evolutionary branching and transmutational speciation  from a common ancestry is not and cannot be observed. Not now, not ever!​​Bonus points if you should suddenly have the epiphany that the evidence would actually look very similar . . . whether a speciation of common ancestry or a speciation of common design be ultimately true.​
Back to you, *Anomalism*. . . .

The evolutionists' actual line of reasoning goes like this:

1.  Naturalism is necessarily true.​​2.  The paleontological record depicts the appearances of species in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.​​3.  Therefore, biological history necessarily entails an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​
The metaphysical apriority of naturalism is scientifically indemonstrable. It’s an article of faith! The conclusion does _not_ necessarily follow at all. If the apriority is false, so is the conclusion. Your imbecilic line of reasoning, *Anomalism*, just like that of virtually every other evolutionist I’ve encountered on social media, including *Crepitus*, mindlessly goes like this:

1.  The paleontological record depicts the appearances of species in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.​​2.  Therefore, biological history necessarily entails an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​
There's no justification for your conclusion anywhere in sight.  Your syllogism is missing something.  Your conclusion does not follow at all!  Indeed, you're not even consciously aware of the fact that your conclusion is ultimately and circularly predicated on the metaphysics of naturalism!  But don’t feel too bad.  Most of the trained biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis are likewise oblivious.

By the way, *Anomalism*, in college, I pulled down virtually all straight _A_'s in advanced courses on biochemistry and evolutionary theory, in exams and papers, and my professors never had so much as an inkling that I believed that the entire edifice was built on sand, namely, the imbecilic apriority of naturalism.

Aside from the fact that for all these many years you've been walking around spouting slogans sans so much as an inkling of the actual reason you believe evolution is true:  what, precisely, is your justification for naturalism itself?  I dare you to justify it without circularly appealing to naturalism.  I double dare you.  LOL!

In the meantime, metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over the methodology of scientific inquiry.  *PoliticalChic* and I are among the very few on this board who fully grasp the realities of that.  Naturalism cannot even begin to account for the origin of the physical world, let alone for the origin of life and its various forms.  The naturalist cannot even provide a universally objective justification for his metaphysical apriority.

But the classical theist can.

1.  That which begins to exist, must have a sufficient cause of its existence.​2.  The physical world—per the incontrovertible imperatives of logic, mathematics and physics—began to exist.​3.  The physical world has a sufficient cause of its existence.​4.  The only sufficient cause for its existence would be that of an eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness.​


----------



## Hollie (Jan 13, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Anomalism said:
> 
> 
> > Behold the petulant arrogance of a person that's actually willing to call believers of evolution "mindless imbeciles" while lacking the tools to ever perceive the magnitude of their own ignorance enough to have a reasonable debate. When you make ridiculous claims and demand that they are fact despite having no evidence to back them up, one can't do much but roll their eyes at you. I actually feel bad for you. What is it about your life that makes you so desperate for God that you're willing to come here and constantly bullshit yourself and others?
> ...


All the usual “... because I say so”, nonsense from the hyper-religious.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 13, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Anomalism said:
> 
> 
> > Behold the petulant arrogance of a person that's actually willing to call believers of evolution "mindless imbeciles" while lacking the tools to ever perceive the magnitude of their own ignorance enough to have a reasonable debate. When you make ridiculous claims and demand that they are fact despite having no evidence to back them up, one can't do much but roll their eyes at you. I actually feel bad for you. What is it about your life that makes you so desperate for God that you're willing to come here and constantly bullshit yourself and others?
> ...



"In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth" ...

What lab experiment can we perform to verify this statement? ...


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 13, 2021)

Hollie said:


> All the usual “... because I say so”, nonsense from the hyper-religious.



All the usual obtuseness of the typical religious fanatics of naturalism/materialism.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 13, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Anomalism said:
> ...



You're not very bright, are you?  What lab experiment can we perform to verify the imperatives of logic and mathematics?  The imperatives of eternalism and sufficient causation?  We don't scientifically affirm them.  We intuit them and necessarily assume their reliability in order to do science in the first place.  Are you implying that they're not reliable?  Prove it!

Naturalists and materialists assume their reliability, except when they arbitrarily don't  . . . when the ramifications thereof falsify their metaphysics.  LOL!  Then they go all retardedly obtuse.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 13, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > All the usual “... because I say so”, nonsense from the hyper-religious.
> ...


Nothing obtuse. Just an observation of the inability of the fundie zealot to offer a coherent argument. 

But yes, how strange that naturalism is a religion, at least according to the fundie zealot. I never knew that accepting a natural world (as opposed to the supernatural world of the religious zealot) made one a "naturalist". Wait, what?

Well, then I suppose that if naturalism/materialism is untrue, we should all anticipate that you are about to demonstrate some of these multitudinous flaws? Great. Let’s see how you do...

I understand well that the religious zealot does not believe in any natural/material existence.  As we have read, that position frees you to ignore all reasoning and evidence for naturalism/materialism, since you don’t believe them to be real anyway. It is a fascinating position, but one that has the potential to teach us absolutely nothing of utility. It is as futile as the religious zealot's attempt to draft magic and supernaturalism into his arguments by using models appealing to various "gods” he refuses to demonstrate. Why do you bother?

Now, in the only example of intelligent creators we really have empirical experience with (i.e. human beings), creation is an act that never occurs _ex nihilo_. All innovation is actually the modification of preexisting material. The general religious zealot's position is that there was no such preexisting material from which their gods “created.” All material is itself the original innovation of the gods, literally appearing _ex nihilo_. They simply will it, and it is, with the stereotypical explanation, "...because I say so".

Fascinating.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 13, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


A lab is not required for mathematical proofs. Metaphysics, per your definition, is the realm of the religious zealot. Your "pwoofs" are under the burqa of "... _because I say so_".

How about a nice hot cup of tea and a coma?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 13, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 13, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Jan 13, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Whack a fundie.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 13, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Whack a fundie.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 13, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> You're not very bright, are you?  What lab experiment can we perform to verify the imperatives of logic and mathematics?  The imperatives of eternalism and sufficient causation?  We don't scientifically affirm them.  We intuit them and necessarily assume their reliability in order to do science in the first place.  Are you implying that they're not reliable?  Prove it!
> Naturalists and materialists assume their reliability, except when they arbitrarily don't  . . . when the ramifications thereof falsify their metaphysics.  LOL!  Then they go all retardedly obtuse.



Logic and mathematics are based on assumptions ... or axioms if you like ... do you know what an mathematical axiom is? ... name one, just one ... let's see how bright you are ...

No lab experiment, then it's not science ... what you spew is philosophy; "eternalism", "metaphysics", how special ... important questions, for sure, but not questions that science can address ... science is about what is observable, measurable and can be duplicated ... Our Lord's creation was a unique event, it cannot be duplicated, thus is outside the realm of science ...

If you believe God created Heaven and Earth, then it's not that big of a step to believe God created this with rhyme and reason ... we commit no sin trying to cipher out Our Lord's will ... and marvel at the good works that can be had ... I'm sorry if I offend your warmongering here, but it is the peacemakers who are blessed before God's eye ... as He commands us ...


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 13, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > You're not very bright, are you?  What lab experiment can we perform to verify the imperatives of logic and mathematics?  The imperatives of eternalism and sufficient causation?  We don't scientifically affirm them.  We intuit them and necessarily assume their reliability in order to do science in the first place.  Are you implying that they're not reliable?  Prove it!
> ...



Ahhhhhhh, shut up you silly ass.


----------



## james bond (Jan 13, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Our Lord's creation was a unique event, it cannot be duplicated, thus is outside the realm of science ...



So you do get that part of it, but why don't you get the rest?



ReinyDays said:


> No lab experiment, then it's not science ... what you spew is philosophy; "eternalism", "metaphysics", how special ... important questions, for sure, but not questions that science can address ... science is about what is observable, measurable and can be duplicated ... Our Lord's creation was a unique event, it cannot be duplicated, thus is outside the realm of science ...



How else does one explain the beginning of space and time when there was nothing?  All we have is the Bible and KCA that was developed because we learned there was a beginning to the universe.  What I am claiming is creation science.

Remember, before that atheist science hypothesized the universe existed forever.  I don't think even secular science said that was able to be duplicated, so you're wrong.  Science claims now there could've been a multiverse and it can't be duplicated; It just is.  However, the atheist science won't go for a _created_ universe.  Do you know why?  There are other factors besides God.



ReinyDays said:


> If you believe God created Heaven and Earth, then it's not that big of a step to believe God created this with rhyme and reason ... we commit no sin trying to cipher out Our Lord's will ... and marvel at the good works that can be had ... I'm sorry if I offend your warmongering here, but it is the peacemakers who are blessed before God's eye ... as He commands us ...



Here's where you go wrong because that isn't what is stated in the Bible.

One can't go just part way with God.  It's either you are with Jesus or against Jesus as he stated.  One has to take the leap of faith on their own.

ETA:  Here's a couple things Jesus and the Bible said about "Leap of Faith."

"Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:29

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" Hebrews 11:1


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 13, 2021)

james bond said:


> How else does one explain the beginning of space and time when there was nothing?



Why must this be explained? ... it is ... is that so difficult for you to accept ...



james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe God created Heaven and Earth, then it's not that big of a step to believe God created this with rhyme and reason ... we commit no sin trying to cipher out Our Lord's will ... and marvel at the good works that can be had ... I'm sorry if I offend your warmongering here, but it is the peacemakers who are blessed before God's eye ... as He commands us ...
> ...



Sermon on the Mount ... read it yourself someday ... Jesus never talked about "creation science" ... but then Jesus never spread the message of hatred ... gee, I wonder why? ...


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jan 13, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> In the meantime, metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over the methodology of scientific inquiry.



I do not recall ever reading this statement stated so succinctly.

That said, let me caution you, Friend, against using the petty name-calling which so infects the godless Left.  It is unseemly and only takes you down closer to their level in the mire.









						A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
					

A topnotch WordPress.com site




					TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com
				




In a nutshell, any naturalistic synthesis of polypeptides is statistically insuperable.
Let's examine just one protein, viz., titin, in human muscles.

It consists of 33,450 amino acid residues, precisely folded.

Selecting each of 20 different L-amino acids in the precise sequence of titin necessitates a probability of 1/20 to the 33,450th power, just for starters.
How is the folding of the protein so precisely determined?  At random?
1/20 to the 33,450th power is ridiculously improbable.  Reasonable men would call it impossible.  But that is just for ONE protein.  Humans have at least 5,000 of them.

You'll burn up your scientific calculator counting the number of zeroes.

Oh, one final consideration.  Peptide bonds versus non-peptide bonds.  They are roughly equally probable.  So take 1/2 to the 33,450 and multiply that by 1/20 to the 33,450th.... before taking folding into account.


----------



## james bond (Jan 13, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Why must this be explained? ... it is ... is that so difficult for you to accept ...



It cannot be replicated in experiment.  It cannot be explained using secular science and that's what atheist science tries to do and fails.  

The creator explained, but people and atheist scientists don't believe him because to them it's _religion_.  It can be explained using creation science.  To get past the religion, on has to take a leap of faith and then everything changes.



ReinyDays said:


> Sermon on the Mount ... read it yourself someday ... Jesus never talked about "creation science" ... but then Jesus never spread the message of hatred ... gee, I wonder why? ...



I have, but Matthew's not an easy book to read, learn, and do.  For me, it takes constant readings in order to make certain I do not backslide.  Have you read it and continue to follow it?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 13, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > In the meantime, metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over the methodology of scientific inquiry.
> ...


Oh, gawd. Not that cut and paste nonsense, again.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 13, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > In the meantime, metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over the methodology of scientific inquiry.
> ...



Fair enough.  I'm afraid the abject stupidity of self deception in the prevailing culture has sorely tested my patience.

To your observation regarding the naturalistic synthesis of polypeptides. . . .

As you know, that's just the beginning of the problems for abiogenesis.  From my article:

[T]here’s absolutely no pathway for amino acids to fabricate the hundreds of thousands of proteins found in living organisms by themselves from the bottom up. It takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. They must be assembled in a meticulously elaborate fashion in order to perform useful or desirable functions.  Without the necessary information contained in preexisting nucleic acids, the result would be a collection of gobbledygook, and nucleic acids cannot evolve without the infrastructural and catalytic properties of preexisting proteins. In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.​


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jan 14, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.


*
So what's your point?  (wink, snort, nudge)*


----------



## surada (Jan 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> 
> 3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
> "All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in _Trends in Genetics_ evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."
> ...



The earth is much older than Genesis.


*World's oldest cave art hunt from 44,000 years ago shows ...*








						Latest Science News & Technology News | Daily Mail Online
					

Stay up-to-date with the latest science and technology news from Daily Mail including scientific discoveries, pictures, new technology, and more.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				



...
Dec 11, 2019 · The world's oldest cave art: Indonesian cave painting that shows mythical figures using spears to kill pigs was created 44,000 years ago. Paintings in red were found in limestone cave on ...


----------



## Hollie (Jan 14, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.
> ...


*His point is: He doesn't understand biology. Neither do you.*

Note my use of bold, gargantuan text for dramatic affect.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 14, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.
> ...


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 14, 2021)

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...



Actually,  ChemEngineer's understanding of the matter is even more advanced than mine, but, then, you don't grasp the realities of the matter and, no doubt, unwittingly conflate the biochemical engineering of the laboratory and abiogenesis.  The latter could never be observed in the first place, let alone demonstrated.  LOL!  We're talking about abiogenesis, Hollie.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 14, 2021)

surada said:


> The earth is much older than Genesis.



What precisely do you mean by "the earth is much older than Genesis"?  And what precisely don't I understand about biology?  Indeed, what precisely does biology have to do with abiogenesis?


----------



## surada (Jan 14, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > The earth is much older than Genesis.
> ...



Genesis is a relatively recent story. The geology and archaeology don't really support the OT..IMO the Bible has nothing to do with history or  science. Look at Sumer or Baalbek and Byblos. I'm areal fan of Samuel Noah Kramer and Israel Finkelstein having spent a lot of time in Palestine and the  Levant.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 14, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > ChemEngineer said:
> ...


Actually, you're wrong about your understanding of the biological sciences as well as the christian-splaining of the other religious extremist. You folks all get your ''science'l from hacks at fundie ministries.

When you litter threads with such nonsense as ''irreducible necessity'', you're simply stealing ID'iot creationer slogans from Michael Behe and various ID'iot creationer ministries. There's a reason why charlatans who represent ID'iot creationer ministries do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 14, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Logic and mathematics are based on assumptions ... or axioms if you like ... do you know what an mathematical axiom is? ... name one, just one ... let's see how bright you are ...



Okay, ReinyDays, *ChemEngineer *rightly corrected me.  I apologize for my reaction to your post.

Moving on. . . .

Logical and mathematical axioms _proper_ are not assumptions as such.  They're incontrovertibly self-evident intuitions that cannot be thought of as being false, as the negation of them yields an absurdity, proving the opposite is necessarily true.  They're always verified, never falsified.  The only sense in which axioms are assumptions goes to their use as the foundations of proofs wherein their veracity if tested.  In this sense, any given axiom (or assumption) may be verified, falsified or in some cases shown to be undefined.

Keeping things simple:

_a_ + _b_ = _b_ + _a_ is a mathematical axiom.  It's also a logical axiom, namely, the law of identity:  _A_ = _A_.

A simple example of a direct mathematical proof:

Theorem:  If _a_ and _b _are consecutive integers, the sum of _a + b _is necessarily an odd number.​​_Assume_ that _a _and _b_ are consecutive integers.  We know then that _b_ = _a + 1.  a + b_ can be re-written as _a + a + 1 _or as _2a + 1_.  Since any number multiplied by an even number is even, and since _1_ added to any even number equals an odd number, we know that _a + b = 2y + 1_;  that is to say, there exists a number _y_ such that a + b = _2y_ + _1 _wherein the sum of_ a + b _is always an odd number_._​
Hence the assumption in this case is a proven theorem built on a number of incontrovertible intuitions (or axioms). 



ReinyDays said:


> No lab experiment, then it's not science ... what you spew is philosophy; "eternalism", "metaphysics", how special ... important questions, for sure, but not questions that science can address ... science is about what is observable, measurable and can be duplicated ... Our Lord's creation was a unique event, it cannot be duplicated, thus is outside the realm of science ...



False.  The English term _science_, ultimately derived from the Latin word _scientia_ via Old French, literally means _knowledge_ or _wisdom_.  The four major divisions of science are theology, philosophy, mathematics and science.  In common parlance, the term _science _merely goes to the distinction, in terms of methodology, between the logical and mathematical sciences of intuition, and the empirical sciences of observation.  The philosophical sciences, particularly the subcategory of metaphysics, necessarily precede and have primacy over the empirical sciences.  The empirical sciences are necessarily predicated on the metaphysical principles (i.e., the incontrovertible imperatives or axioms) of eternalism and sufficient causation, and the latter is simply beyond the purview of the former.  Notwithstanding, they interactively inform one another insofar as they pertain to one continuous reality.



ReinyDays said:


> If you believe God created Heaven and Earth, then it's not that big of a step to believe God created this with rhyme and reason ... we commit no sin trying to cipher out Our Lord's will ... and marvel at the good works that can be had ... I'm sorry if I offend your warmongering here, but it is the peacemakers who are blessed before God's eye ... as He commands us ...



I don't know what you mean, in this instance, by _warmongering_.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 14, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Jan 14, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Logic and mathematics are based on assumptions ... or axioms if you like ... do you know what an mathematical axiom is? ... name one, just one ... let's see how bright you are ...
> ...


Actually, the four major divisions of science include mathematics and logic, biological science, social science and physical science.

You identified science as one branch of the four sciences. That doesnt make sense. Neither does your list.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 14, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Jan 14, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Don’t feel such shame. You’re here to learn.

When was theology ever a branch of science?


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 14, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Biblical theology is still the queen of the sciences.  Only the illiterate and reprobates don't know that.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 14, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Biblical theology is queen of no science. 

Theology is not science.  Only the illiterate, reprobates and the hyper-religious believe that theology approaches a science discipline .


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 14, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
> 
> 
> A topnotch WordPress.com site
> ...


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 14, 2021)

surada said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > surada said:
> ...



My question was rhetorical.  Of course the earth is much older than the book of Genesis.  As for the rest, you just presuppose historical naturalism like Kramer and Finkelstein.  Other historical naturalists, for example, held that the biblical account of Abraham's life was the stuff of fiction because the city of Ur obviously never existed.

Then in 1922 the  archaeologist C. Leonard Woolley began excavating the site of the ancient Sumerian city of Ur.  LOL!


----------



## surada (Jan 14, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...



Ur couldn't have existed unless it was under water.. The river changed course..

Kramer spent his life translating cuneiform tablets. I love History Begins at Sumer.

I think Abraham is probably a literary device or perhaps representative of a number of legendary tribal warlords. There's no support for the Exodus story to be historical.. Egypt controlled Sinai and the Canaanite towns there paid tribute to Pharaoh. They were successful in mining, metallurgy and pottery making. Everybody walked to the Nile Delta during drought and hard times.

The stories are fabulous and their messages are important, but a million people didn't leave Egypt for Palestine. I mean Sinai is only 135 miles across.

*Ancient Jerusalem: The Village, the Town, the City ...*








						A Biblical Altar on Mt. Ebal and Other Israelite Footprints in the Jordan Valley?
					

Foot-shaped sites have been found throughout the Jordan Valley, including an extraordinary cultic site on Mt. Ebal. Is this the Israelite altar described in Joshua




					www.biblicalarchaeology.org
				



...
Oct 17, 2020 · In the Byzantine period (fourth–seventh centuries C.E.), Jerusalem was a Christian city.* a Estimates of the city’s population are as high as 100,000 and then go down gradually to 70,000 to 60,000 to 50,000 to 25,000.* Geva’s estimate: 15,000. In 637 C.E. the Muslims besieged Jerusalem; the period of Islamic Jerusalem commenced.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 14, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
> ...


Gullibility is a religion.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 14, 2021)

surada said:


> The earth is much older than Genesis.





Ringtone said:


> What precisely do you mean by "the earth is much older than Genesis"?  And what precisely don't I understand about biology?  Indeed, what precisely does biology have to do with abiogenesis?





surada said:


> Genesis is a relatively recent story. The geology and archaeology don't really support the OT..IMO the Bible has nothing to do with history or  science. Look at Sumer or Baalbek and Byblos. I'm areal fan of Samuel Noah Kramer and Israel Finkelstein having spent a lot of time in Palestine and the  Levant.





Ringtone said:


> My question was rhetorical.  Of course the earth is much older than the book of Genesis.  As for the rest, you just presuppose historical naturalism like Kramer and Finkelstein.  Other historical naturalists, for example, held that the biblical account of Abraham's life was the stuff of fiction because the city of Ur obviously never existed.
> 
> Then in 1922 the  archaeologist C. Leonard Woolley began excavating the site of the ancient Sumerian city of Ur.  LOL!





surada said:


> Ur couldn't have existed unless it was under water.. The river changed course..



Inexplicably confounding the population of Jerusalem, which did not even exist at the time, with the pre-invasion population of the Israeli tribe, you previously claimed that Joshua's army couldn't have had as many as 600.000 men of fighting age.  (By the way, you have yet to acknowledge this glaringly obvious error.)  Just to be clear, are you now claiming that the _ancient_ coastal city of Ur near the mouth of the Euphrates never existed?

By the way, you have yet to explain why you gave Hollie's silly post regarding biology, abiogenesis and my supposed ignorance a thumbs up.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 14, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > The earth is much older than Genesis.
> ...


Expressing to the board your hurt feelings? 

You delicate flower.


----------



## 22lcidw (Jan 14, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Why the hell are you more screwed up then the fundies then?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 14, 2021)

22lcidw said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


"...than...''


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> "...than...''



Finally, something on which we agree, a point of English grammar.  LOL!


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Expressing to the board your hurt feelings?
> 
> You delicate flower.








LOL!


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jan 15, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it.



It has nothing of the sort, and your foolish repetition of this old saw achieves nothing except to people who cannot think.


“It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back.”  (Dr. I.L. Cohen, “Darwin Was Wrong:” A Study in Probabilities (1985) 


“I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know.”  (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981) 


“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”  (Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, “Evolution, Erratic Pace”)

“Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis, this must be admitted.”  (Dr. T.H Morgan)



*“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)*

*“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)*


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Expressing to the board your hurt feelings?
> ...


Repetitive cut and paste spam.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> Anomalism said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it.
> ...


I’m guessing the bold, gargantuan text is intended to convince others those sloppy, cut and paste “quotes” are true?


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> I’m guessing the bold, gargantuan text is intended to convince others those sloppy, cut and paste “quotes” are true?



How big of scientific news do you suppose it would be if evolution was unraveling?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 15, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I’m guessing the bold, gargantuan text is intended to convince others those sloppy, cut and paste “quotes” are true?
> ...


That would be big news.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> That would be big news.



It's like they don't realize that.


----------



## james bond (Jan 16, 2021)

surada said:


> The earth is much older than Genesis.



No, it isn't.  The atheist scientists had to have an old Earth for evolution so they made it so.



surada said:


> Dec 11, 2019 · The world's oldest cave art: Indonesian cave painting that shows mythical figures using spears to kill pigs was created 44,000 years ago. Paintings in red were found in limestone cave on ...



Ditto.


----------



## james bond (Jan 16, 2021)

Hollie said:


> When was theology ever a branch of science?



“_Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind._“ - Albert Einstein, 1941

Before the four formal sciences which you mentioned was religion.  Today's religion came first in the 16th century.  Modern science came after in the 17th.  (If you want what was before that -- Timeline of religion - Wikipedia).  

The study of the relationship between religion and science surprisingly started in the 1960s when scholars in theology, philosophy, history, and the sciences have studied the relationship between science and religion.

Thus, most of us do not think much of your contributions to these discussions because of your beliefs and automatic discarding of religion.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> 
> 3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
> "All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in _Trends in Genetics_ evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."
> ...


Yesirreeeeeeeeee...........................    And the Earth is also flat. LOL


----------



## Hollie (Jan 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > When was theology ever a branch of science?
> ...


Well, now. If it is ''quotes'' you want....

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. … For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

Albert Einstein

You have this odd notion that religionism coming before science somehow makes religionism ''correct''. That's rather silly. It may come as a shock to you but the processes of nature are not governed by the gods. Thunder and lightning are not a product of angry gods. Science, why admittedly ''coming behind'' religion, has given us the processes for thunder, lightning and other processes of nature.

As you have decided you you speak on behalf of ''most of us', I'm curious to know if it was a consensus agreement among the religioners to make you the Ayatollah. Since you have decided that ''most of us'' don't like my contribution to the board, should I be concerned that you and those like you are going to preserve your ''honor'' as they do in some parts of the workd?

 There is a reason the _argumentum ad populum_ is a logical fallacy, because it tells us nothing about what is actually true.


Evolution, the physical sciences and our understanding of the universe are based on physical evidence from observation and testing of theorems.  Christianity claims that the Gods had something to do with the creation of the earth, and therefore Christians are responsible for that evidence. If evolution and the physical sciences are true, then the magic and supernaturalism of the  Gods cannot be trusted. And if you can't trust the Gods, then what good is the Bible?

Belief in Bibles and supernaturalism is governed entirely by the choice one makes. When reason and rationality conflict with religious dogma you have to embrace _*either *_reason _*or *_dogma. We are social animals, and like most other social animals it is always less stressful to follow leaders, especially religious leaders, like sheep. I am certain that ignoring the obvious is much more comforting to you than doubting that certain absurdities are true. You are not alone.

But it is not a particularly good process for discerning truth.


----------



## james bond (Jan 18, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



It's not quotes that I want; I was just fortunate to find Einstein's quote.  It should open your eyes to how religion and science are related as I've stated many times over, but you automatically discard religion based on your false beliefs.  I'm not sure if it's _atheism_ (a religion in itself) that causes it but something deep inside you won't allow you to understand the relationship.  It's just natural that we discuss religion here in S&T as well as science in R&E.

>>For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.<<

I'm not going to touch this, but to point out your stating it's "childish superstitions."  You should know it's not just a belief in God (religion), but the Torah and science is what forms the knowledge base and history for a group of people -- Torah and Science - My Jewish Learning.

>>You have this odd notion that religionism coming before science somehow makes religionism ''correct''. That's rather silly. It may come as a shock to you but the processes of nature are not governed by the gods. Thunder and lightning are not a product of angry gods. Science, why admittedly ''coming behind'' religion, has given us the processes for thunder, lightning and other processes of nature.<<

I don't think anyone here practices religionism in the S&T and haven't said anything that you profess we do such as what thunder and lightning are.  The argument I presented was explaining what was there before the big bang and KCA.  That is a logical explanation and argument and the Christians found the Bible explained in detail what happened.

I don't expect you to accept it, but you can't just discard it saying it's religion and not based on knowledge.

As for your claim that KCA is a fallacy, you can't argue that against William Lane Craig.  He is a professor of logic.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


You have made no argument that science and religion are related. In fact, we see unbridgeable gaps separating them.

I have to note that in these various forums, it is exclusively Christians who are demonstrating their reliance on pseudoscience, metaphysics, Bibles and presumptions for their claims to partisan gods. We see clearly how marginal and sectarian their viewpoints are. Rail against biological _evilution_ as you must. It isn't a religion or an appeal to supernaturalism, it's a science. Learn about the data supporting the theory and you will see that the explanations fit the data. Because they do, and testing supports the conclusions, then accept it as a provisionally true hypothesis and theory available for further research. I must caution you, though. If you follow through on the above, you'll be doing science, and who knows where it will all lead... 

Religioners have explained nothing of what was before the expansion of the universe. You simply jam your gods into a gap of our knowledge. There is no evidence at all that supports _ID_ _creationism _and nothing that supports the Earth and all its life was made by supernatural gods a few thousand years ago. The evidence which is readily available consistently and unambiguously demonstrates that the Earth is very old, and that life has existed on Earth in a huge variety of ever changing forms for millions of years.

While the processes that cause thunder and lightning are understood as naturally occurring, to suggest they are caused by angry gods serves what purpose? A similar argument can be made for the natural, rational world. What purpose is served by Christians insisting on supernaturalism as the cause of existence when the facts contradict such an argument? What ID creationers want to do is _*not*_ learn the theology of their “holy texts”. They want to *not *interpret them at all. They insist on a literal interpretation and then launch into the most outrageous arguments in their need to have only literal Interpretation of their Bible be the truth. Unfortunately, two things remain true to confound the literalists: they still must interpret the texts to say they understand them as the literal truth; and their interpretations are contrary to testing and observable facts.

William Lane Craig is just another creationer. I certainly _can_ argue against him. I just did. See above.


----------



## d0gbreath (Jan 19, 2021)

Did Adam and Eve resemble Neanderthal, or Cro-Magnon Homo Sapiens? Or Barbie and Ken?
If it's the former, a tiny bit of evolution was required to get to the people that look like the dolls, IMHO.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 19, 2021)

Hidden said:


> Did Adam and Eve resemble Neanderthal, or Cro-Magnon Homo Sapiens? Or Barbie and Ken?
> If it's the former, a tiny bit of evolution was required to get to the people that look like the dolls, IMHO.


Westerners would go with the Barbie and Ken model. They would make A&E in their own image just as they did with making Jesus a tall, fair-haired, fair-skinned, Caucasian looking dude.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 3, 2021)

james bond said:


> If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> 
> 3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
> "All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in _Trends in Genetics_ evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."
> ...


Have you ever seen the evolution of New Zealand? No mammals are native to the country. So it’s very interesting to see how the birds have evolved on this island. It’s almost like we get to see what evolution might look like on another planet. Some birds are meat eaters, carnivores, vegetarians. Some can’t fly. It’s crazy.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 3, 2021)

Hidden said:


> Did Adam and Eve resemble Neanderthal, or Cro-Magnon Homo Sapiens? Or Barbie and Ken?
> If it's the former, a tiny bit of evolution was required to get to the people that look like the dolls, IMHO.


2 million years ago the first man. His brain was still a lot smaller than ours today. Started walking upright and using hands for tools. Started to wonder and think. Get smarter. Community.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 3, 2021)

james bond said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > Anomalism said:
> ...


What beget god?

Do you know the difference between our observable universe and the entire universe?

The entire universe has no end and no beginning


----------



## abu afak (Apr 3, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Have you ever seen the evolution of New Zealand? No mammals are native to the country. So it’s very interesting to see how the birds have evolved on this island. It’s almost like we get to see what evolution might look like on another planet. Some birds are meat eaters, carnivores, vegetarians. Some can’t fly. It’s crazy.


And because you're ****** idiot you bumped up a false and already refuted 2.5+ month old headline/thread to disagree, but are so stupid as to not recognize you are actually promoting the title.

`


----------



## surada (Apr 3, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > When was theology ever a branch of science?
> ...



You actually think the earth was created in 7  days 7,000 years ago?


----------



## ChemEngineer (Apr 3, 2021)

"Science advances one funeral at a time." - Physicist Max Planck

Conferences have been held which thoroughly debunk the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis by any naturalistic mechanism.    

Quotation after quotation by brilliant scientists dissenting from the archaic nonsense of 1850 don't matter one whit to those with Darwin's ax to grind and hundreds of millions of research dollars to grab up and "prove" whatever Darwinian "finding" they wish.


----------



## surada (Apr 3, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> "Science advances one funeral at a time." - Physicist Max Planck
> 
> Conferences have been held which thoroughly debunk the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis by any naturalistic mechanism.
> 
> Quotation after quotation by brilliant scientists dissenting from the archaic nonsense of 1850 don't matter one whit to those with Darwin's ax to grind and hundreds of millions of research dollars to grab up and "prove" whatever Darwinian "finding" they wish.



Do YOU think the earth was created in 7 days 7,000 years ago?


----------



## LuckyDuck (Apr 3, 2021)

james bond said:


> If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> 
> 3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
> "All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in _Trends in Genetics_ evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."
> ...


The DNA difference between humans and chimpanzees, is only 4%.  In other words, we share 96% of the same genes.  That 4% is critical. 
Next, mainstream scientists are in agreement that "evolution" is no longer a theory, but a fact.  The only thing that remains a theory is "how the gradual transformation works."
The fossil and bone remnants of the horse are a good example of the gradual changes went through.
Also, we do have bone and fossil skull remains of humans and their ancestors, showing the gradual transformation.
Scientists are saying our skulls have been having subtle changes over the last 150 years and 150 years is just a drop in the bucket when compared with tens of thousands and millions of years.


----------



## surada (Apr 3, 2021)

LuckyDuck said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> ...



ChemEngineer

Why would a person trained in science  pit science against religious allegory?   I have five Chemical engineers in my family who are church going Christians.. They don't do that. Of course they went to Auburn and MIT for their masters. So what sort of ass pits science against faith and WHY? Why the hell is this even an issue?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 3, 2021)

abu afak said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever seen the evolution of New Zealand? No mammals are native to the country. So it’s very interesting to see how the birds have evolved on this island. It’s almost like we get to see what evolution might look like on another planet. Some birds are meat eaters, carnivores, vegetarians. Some can’t fly. It’s crazy.
> ...


Don't you like this thread?  Do you want it to die?  What is false about this thread?  It's titled, "is an evolution scientist ever going to admit the other side may be right".  Did an evolution scientist admit the other side may be right?  Then there is nothing false about the premise.  Am I missing something?

If you don't like the subject run along.  I learned some pretty interesting stuff the other day.  Anyone who denies evolution is a fucking idiot.  Seriously.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 3, 2021)

LuckyDuck said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> ...


It seems only the catholics have accepted evolution.  It's the white American evangelical born again southern baptists types who don't believe.  Pat Roberts 700 club types.  Their churches take the bible literally.  They can be lutherans, protestants, presbyterians, there's a million different sects that were invented in America.  They did not come from England or Ireland they were invented in America.  There were no born agains in Europe before America.

Amazing today there are still churches who get away with taking the bible literally.   

We are still so primitive.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 3, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Don't you like this thread?  Do you want it to die? * What is false about this thread?*  It's titled, "is an evolution scientist ever going to admit the other side may be right".  Did an evolution scientist admit the other side may be right?  Then there is nothing false about the premise.  Am I missing something?
> 
> If you don't like the subject run along.  I learned some pretty interesting stuff the other day.  Anyone who denies evolution is a fucking idiot.  Seriously.


More fallacious Stupidity.
*What's "false" is he is INDEED suggesting/saying outright evolution isn't true, by asking when a scientist will ADMIT it's not true.
You are Too Stupid to understand the Intent AND the outright language.
It's a "When did you stop beating your wife? false question. when No one IS beating their wife.*
YOU 12 IQ MORON.

What you learned the other day (somewhere nebulous) has nothing to do with humoring this Lie, and you are NOT going to learn anything from James Bond except Bible passages.
Seriously, YOU just promoted a Cult Mental patient and his every post conviction that Evolution isn't true... and helped him promote it by bumping this otherwise dead thread.
*If you want to learn something you can read my Blockbuster thread starts showing the best EVIDENCE why Evo IS true. Reasons you did NOT know, never posted, and still don't know/didn't learn, and wouldn't have learned from anyone else here.*

You remain an even bigger ***hole for the precise reason I said.

`


----------



## Peace (Apr 3, 2021)

james bond said:


> If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> 
> 3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
> "All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in _Trends in Genetics_ evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."
> ...



I never believed we came from Chimps but I also do not believe we are from this planet either...


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 3, 2021)

abu afak said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you like this thread?  Do you want it to die? * What is false about this thread?*  It's titled, "is an evolution scientist ever going to admit the other side may be right".  Did an evolution scientist admit the other side may be right?  Then there is nothing false about the premise.  Am I missing something?
> ...


Why do you limit who can see your profile? I cant search the threads you’ve started. I’ll look out for them. Seems to me we both agree evolution is real. so why did you dislike what I wrote about New Zealand?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 3, 2021)

surada said:


> You actually think the earth was created in 7  days 7,000 years ago?


7 days?!


----------



## abu afak (Apr 3, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Why do you limit who can see your profile? I cant search the threads you’ve started. I’ll look out for them. Seems to me we both agree evolution is real. so why did you dislike what I wrote about New Zealand


So..
1. You have no refutation of me SHOWING YOU how he WAS Denying evolution and YOU were helping him.
Gameover

2. Many of my threads are on this/The FIRST PAGE, others on the top half of the last.
Most YOUNGER/above THIS one you Bumped up you BLIND IDIOT.
You are an EFFFING 12 IQ Moron.
Resign.



`


----------



## LuckyDuck (Apr 4, 2021)

surada said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


I recall a geologist that said, he had tested rocks and and found, per testing, that the rocks appear to be approximately, four "billion" years old. However, because the teachings of his religion, claims that the earth can only be 5,000 years old, he chooses to not believe the test results. This is a case of, "don't believe what you're seeing, believe what we tell you.  "We've brainwashed you since infancy, so you must believe us."


----------



## james bond (Apr 4, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> ...



Isn't that natural selection created by God?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 4, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> "Science advances one funeral at a time." - Physicist Max Planck
> 
> Conferences have been held which thoroughly debunk the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis by any naturalistic mechanism.
> 
> Quotation after quotation by brilliant scientists dissenting from the archaic nonsense of 1850 don't matter one whit to those with Darwin's ax to grind and hundreds of millions of research dollars to grab up and "prove" whatever Darwinian "finding" they wish.


Obviously, you don't identify any of these alleged conferences or any of the conference participants. Just more unfounded claims by the Christian Taliban.

Just more of the nonsense claims from religious extremists on their anti-science, anti-knowledge Jihad. I'll note that the ''quotes'' dumped into threads by the religious extremists are typically found on ID'iot creationer websites and are frequently edited, parsed and out of context snippets which only serve to project the dishonest and deceitful tactics of those attempting to force their religious agenda on others,


----------



## Hollie (Apr 4, 2021)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


No, Natural selection includes the term ''natural'', which makes no references to magic or supernaturalism. Further, nothing about ''natural'' implies your three gods as opposed to any of the other gods.  The realization of natural selection is in fact definable resulting in success of heritable biological traits and/or behaviours. Biologist George Williams described natural selection as: "the essence of the genetical theory of natural selection is a statistical bias in the relative rates of survival of alternatives (genes, individuals, etc.)" (_Adaptation and Natural Selection: a Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought_ [Princeton, 1966], p. 22). That's it. No angry gods required. Natural selection is a function of heritable traits and success in reproduction. There is no need for magic and the intervention of supernatural gods.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 4, 2021)

abu afak said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you limit who can see your profile? I cant search the threads you’ve started. I’ll look out for them. Seems to me we both agree evolution is real. so why did you dislike what I wrote about New Zealand
> ...


Listen towel head. We agree on evolution. So why you being such a dick habibi?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 4, 2021)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Who?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 4, 2021)

abu afak said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you limit who can see your profile? I cant search the threads you’ve started. I’ll look out for them. Seems to me we both agree evolution is real. so why did you dislike what I wrote about New Zealand
> ...


No offense but your threads are boring and die too quickly.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 4, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Listen towel head. We agree on evolution. So why you being such a dick habibi?


Yes but as I pointed out initially, you are Promoting an ANTi-EVOLUTION Thread because YOU ARE STUPID BEYOND BELIEF
You also make no points in support of evolution like me, you just SAY you are in favor but you don't know why.
Because again, you ARE Stupid..

`


----------



## james bond (Apr 4, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



It's really about _life_, i.e. God's breath, and that is _supernatural_.  We know because only life begets life.  Making life from life is natural, but life itself is eternal so it falls into the supernatural realm.  Today is Easter Sunday, and we know because Jesus rose again from the dead just like you will rise again after you die.  Death isn't the end of life.  Death is only the end of this world for the deceased (Earth, universe, and everything in it).  One is rushed immediately to Hades.

Even the women in Jesus' life nor the Apostles could believe Jesus had risen from death and rose into heaven after the evidence of the empty tomb.  They still had faith, but couldn't believe what Jesus said would happen did happen.  They had to collect the evidence for themselves.  With atheists, it's they do not "In God We Trust."

We study biology as the study of life, but it doesn't explain the origin of life properly.  Life already was here.  Thus, when atheist science tries to explain how life originated, it doesn't get the job done.  It makes one only understand what you posted.

The truth is God is who _created natural selection and started life, Earth, the universe, and everything in it_.


----------



## james bond (Apr 4, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



The being who created natural selection -- God.


----------



## james bond (Apr 4, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Yes but as I pointed out initially, you are Promoting an ANTi-EVOLUTION Thread because YOU ARE STUPID BEYOND BELIEF
> You also make no points in support of evolution like me, you just SAY you are in favor but you don't know why.
> Because again, you ARE Stupid..



Your argument is stupid because mostly you call people who disagree with you stupid.  It's practically all ad hominem attack and makes you an invalid and a bore.

It goes to show the level of your education as grammar school.  It's interesting that grammar school law is based on the _Old Deluder Satan Law_ (Satan's chief aim was to prevent people from learning about Scriptures) or Old Deluder Act in the early colonies of the USA.


----------



## james bond (Apr 4, 2021)

LuckyDuck said:


> The DNA difference between humans and chimpanzees, is only 4%. In other words, we share 96% of the same genes. That 4% is critical.
> Next, mainstream scientists are in agreement that "evolution" is no longer a theory, but a fact. The only thing that remains a theory is "how the gradual transformation works."



You state a fact, but the DNA similarity can easily be explained as the work of God, i.e. he reused the same genetic material.  Now, evolution states there was a common ancestor but cannot provide explicit proof of this ancestor not its transition.  The evos could not provide the actual common ancestor as there was much lies and deception based upon it.  Also, the embryo drawings of humans turned out to be fake.

Thus, basically what you state as a theory isn't really a theory (nor has become factual as atheists and their scientists proclaim).  To me, it's been disproved.


----------



## james bond (Apr 4, 2021)

surada said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



It's the best explanation for the evidence.  We find too many lies in evolution.  Why do you think today's science has become by consensus when it was based on the scientific method before?  Hint:  It makes lies of evolution more easily to disseminate.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 4, 2021)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Amun Ra?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 4, 2021)

*When Is An Evolution Scientist Ever Going To Admit The Other Side May Be Right?*

What are the supernaturalists right about?


----------



## james bond (Apr 5, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Welp, we know which direction you're headed.



Hollie said:


> What are the supernaturalists right about?



Practically everything in the Bible.

Do you know what the evos are right about?  Natural selection.

But they're wrong about evolution with natural selection.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 6, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Your cheap threats are meaningless.

The writers of the bibles had no knowledge of biological evolution. You can offer all the denials your madrassah can has taught you about evolution but that doesn't change the _fact_ of evolution.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 6, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Same direction you're going.  6 feet under or in Urn.

Funny, I don't know one person who has a Urn of ashes in their home on display.  So where are they keeping gramma?  In the basement attack or closet?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 6, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Same direction you're going.  6 feet under or in Urn.
> 
> Funny, I don't know one person who has a Urn of ashes in their home on display.  So where are they keeping gramma?  In the basement attack or closet?












						Evidence does not support the theory of evolution
					

As president of the Centre des Etudes et de Prospective sur la Science (CEP), I would like to present some arguments which, I…




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## Hollie (Apr 6, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Same direction you're going.  6 feet under or in Urn.
> ...


That's so silly.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 6, 2021)

james bond said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Where in the bible does it say blacks and whites shouldn't marry?  It used to say that does it still?  Christians used to point to passages in the bible that showed god did not approve of race mixing.  Has that since been redacted?


----------



## bodecea (Apr 6, 2021)

james bond said:


> If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> 
> 3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
> "All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in _Trends in Genetics_ evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."
> ...


Apes and humans, genetically, are more alike than they are different.


----------



## james bond (Apr 6, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You can place other gods before me forever, but I know the true one.

Do you know what "Requiescat in Pace" (Latin) means?  There will be no peace for you and the atheists as they will rest in doubt.  One has to know that life is _supernatural_.  In a nutshell, this is what we have been arguing about.

ToE is not fact as you claim no matter how much you want it to be.


----------



## james bond (Apr 6, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I prefer ashes than being worm food.  Think I'll be scattered in the ocean.

However, that is not what is important.  What is important is where your life spirit goes and in what condition -- perfect or imperfect (gone).


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 6, 2021)

james bond said:


> If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> 
> 3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
> "All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in _Trends in Genetics_ evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."
> ...


Never. All the evidence is mutually supportive and points in the same direction. You lost this one 160 years ago. Sorry. Give it up, you are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 6, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Are you hoping to earn martyrdom points from your gods? I’m not placing your gods or anyone else’s gods in front of you. That’s your delusion, alone.

Do you know what “don’t threaten me with your gods” (Latin), means? It means I have no regard for arrogant, bellicose hyper-religious types who presume to presume to speak on behalf of their fictitious gods.

Actually, the hyper-religious never manage to make any logical argument for supernaturalism. The natural world, on the other hand, is demonstrated every day. I don’t see any reason to make appeals to incorporeal entities. Similarly, I have no reason to believe that any of the gods will either punish me or assist me in any afterlife or in the corporeal world. And, I certainly don’t accept that any gods would allow someone like you to threaten others with you gods while you strut around like a swaggering teenager who just guzzled his first six pack.

Is there a reason why you hate your corporeal life and project that hate toward others? You appear to be equating belief in the supernatural as somehow providing a "meaning" for your life. The happenstance of your geographic place of birth, thus dictating the gods you were given, may provide a seeming “safe place” for your insecurities about the fragility of life. It may assuage your fear of dying. It’s true that most people are not content with being corporeal. A universe that doesn’t provide accommodation for our fears and frailties offers little comfort and security for those who have a compelling need to have their wishes granted that their fears and insecurities are shouldered by a father figure? You have daddy issues?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 6, 2021)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Life spirit? Are you so conceited to think that some eternal party in some 
“heaven” will be less a party if you’re not there?

*snicker*.


----------



## james bond (Apr 6, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



>>Life spirit?<<

As usual, you do not understand real science.  How else could we have got here?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 6, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I was talking to this Jew the other day and he was saying that us atheists may be able to school christians but we couldn’t possibly win a debate on god against a Jew.

I agreed with him for a couple back and forth posts and then I said, “ at least us atheists and Jews agree on one thing. That Jesus story is complete bullshit am I right?”

And I never heard back from him.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 6, 2021)

james bond said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> > The DNA difference between humans and chimpanzees, is only 4%. In other words, we share 96% of the same genes. That 4% is critical.
> ...


God of the gaps. What we don’t know must be god.


----------



## james bond (Apr 6, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Where in the bible does it say blacks and whites shouldn't marry? It used to say that does it still? Christians used to point to passages in the bible that showed god did not approve of race mixing. Has that since been redacted?



Have no idea.  It prolly isn't there or something you made up.



sealybobo said:


> I was talking to this Jew the other day and he was saying that us atheists may be able to school christians but we couldn’t possibly win a debate on god against a Jew.
> 
> I agreed with him for a couple back and forth posts and then I said, “ at least us atheists and Jews agree on one thing. That Jesus story is complete bullshit am I right?”
> 
> And I never heard back from him.



It could've been you and your personality.

Why would Jesus story be BS when it hasn't been contradicted since that time?



sealybobo said:


> God of the gaps. What we don’t know must be god.



God of the gaps is what Christians invented to not use God when stuck on a science problem.

However, what is written in Genesis is from God himself.  He was the only one there at the time.  We find that science backs up what he stated.

We do not find science backs up what Darwin stated, so we have Evolution of the gaps to explain what never happens in real life.  It's a bogus origins hypothesis to further atheism and atheist scientists.


----------



## james bond (Apr 6, 2021)

bodecea said:


> Apes and humans, genetically, are more alike than they are different.



Which was explained already as God used the same parts.  The small percentage difference makes a big difference.


----------



## james bond (Apr 6, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Never. All the evidence is mutually supportive and points in the same direction. You lost this one 160 years ago. Sorry. Give it up, you are embarrassing yourself.



How can the truth lose lol?  Creationism is the best explanation and science and the scientific method backs it up.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Not by magical “life spirits”.

Explain this magical nonsense.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Apes and humans, genetically, are more alike than they are different.
> ...


Your gods were assembly line workers who used to work for Toyota?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Where in the bible does it say blacks and whites shouldn't marry? It used to say that does it still? Christians used to point to passages in the bible that showed god did not approve of race mixing. Has that since been redacted?
> ...



I didn't say the bible says blacks and whites shouldn't marry.  That's something Christians told me.  You're saying it doesn't say it?  In 10 years I bet you won't be able to show me where it says gays shouldn't marry.  Seems that religion evolves.  It must or else it goes extinct.  Today women can be priests.  We are not the center of the universe and Catholics believe in evolution.

The Jesus story hasn't been contradicted?  Of course it has.  The Jews say it didn't happen.  He was not the messiah.  You guys made that up.  The Jews would be Christians if they believed the Jesus story.  There are even Jews for Jesus.  They are different than traditional jews.  They believe the Jesus story.  Traditional jews don't.

God wrote Genisis?  Where is the book he wrote in?

Science overwhelmingly backs up Darwin.  Stupid to say otherwise.


----------



## james bond (Apr 7, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I didn't say magical.  I said life is _supernatural_ since death isn't the end all, be all.

Otherwise, there would have to be some natural process to create life, but we know from the swan neck flask experiment that only life begets life.

What would be magical is if abiogenesis happened, but it doesn't.  We know from the scientific method.  We also can observe that life doesn't spring up from non-life (abiogenesis).  Thus, you and the atheist fools believe in false science.  You actually believe some kind of magic happens from primordial soup, lightening, or something in outer space.  I'm beginning to think panspermia doesn't happen either from Earth to another planet because the solar winds are so harsh.

On this,  the creationists have won because you have no evidence whatsoever for life from non-life.  Creating amino acids isn't creating protein.  Can I help it if you and the atheist scientists cannot admit defeat and are wrong?  Even this it takes billions of years thing sounds hokey as the Earth wouldn't last that long with catastrophism.  Also, the layers of the Earth would be much, much, much thicker.

The bottom line is it's your side that believes in magical happenings.  Those things never happen or else you would have solid evidence and you have nothing haha.



Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You just don't get it.  It's part of the design.  It's quite intelligent.

Non-intelligent people would not understand.


----------



## james bond (Apr 7, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



We found that gays make their own choices for sexual attraction.  There is no gay gene and it was proven scientifically.  Another lie by the atheists and liberals bites the dust.  Thus, it's a sin as pointed out in the Bible and science backs up the Bible once again.

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

It just goes to show that you don't know what you are talking about in regards to gays.

As for interracial marriage, I've heard it was for the Jews in the OT.  Back then, others worshiped false gods.  You'll have to explain how you got blacks and whites shouldn't marry.

Yes, God wrote Genesis.  He had several authors write his autobiography.

I think it's the opposite.  Name three things Darwin was right about.  Science has found he was wrong more than right.

Anyway, does that really matter if one sees themselves lose their perfect spiritual self destroyed in the Lake of Fire?



sealybobo said:


> I didn't say the bible says blacks and whites shouldn't marry. That's something Christians told me.



Whoever told you is not correct.  The Bible says that we are of one race -- the human race.  Nothing against interracial marriages.  What's interesting is believers should not marry non-believers.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> How can the truth lose lol?


I know you don't understand why this statement is silly and specious. This is how your magical beliefs handicap you.


----------



## james bond (Apr 7, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> I didn't say the bible says blacks and whites shouldn't marry. That's something Christians told me.



The Bible says that we are of one race -- the human race.  Nothing against interracial marriages.  What's interesting is believers should not marry non-believers.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > How can the truth lose lol?
> ...



One can't lose with the truth.  Thus, there is a winner and a loser in this discussion.

For example, you believe in Perseverance finding evidence on Mars for some kind of life but it won't.

So far, it's been really silly things that reporters have been reporting on such as naming rocks and did it witness a rainbow.  Can you admit that you lost because you believe in fairy tales taught you from Darwin, Lyell, Hutton, and other atheists?  I don't think you'll admit you were silly and wrong.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related.  Darwin just had a hypothesis.  He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence.  Furthermore, we still have apes and _all_ are not bipedal.
> 
> 3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
> "All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in _Trends in Genetics_ evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."
> ...


.









						Genetic Difference Between Humans and Chimps - Primates Park
					

The chimpanzee and bonobo are humans' closest living kin. Researches have found that there is a genetic difference between humans and chimps



					www.primatespark.com
				




People and chimps share a shocking 98.8 % of their DNA


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Life comes from the inside of suns.  Are suns alive?  I think planets and suns are living things but a lot of people tell me I'm nuts when I say that.  Those suns were made from gas.  No god necessary


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


It says in the bible "people who practice homosexuality"?  I know it says something about the unrighteous and idolaters but did you add that about the homosexuals?  Where does it say that in the bible?

Gays make their own choices?  Yes some are bisexual and can choose to be straight.  Like Mike Pence.  But some can't choose.  Some are 100% the same way you are 100% straight.

Actually, if you believe being gay is a choice, that tells me you are a bisexual who chooses to be straight.  That might be true for you but not for everyone.  Just like some gays are tops and some are only bottoms.  

P.S.  You straight christians need to worry about yourselves.  A lot of you are straight but you are unrighteous, sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, greedy, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers.  So as long as you are judging yourselves as harshly as you are gays, that's cool with me.

PPS.  I thought you could sin your entire life and then be forgiven in the final hour.  If so then I guess gays ask forgiveness in the end just like the rest of you Christian sinners do.  

You don't sin?  

How many people alive right now are going to make it to heaven?  Not many.  Anyone not Christian going to heaven?  And you claim most christians won't make it into the kingdom because they are sinners too.  So if only half of Christians are going to heaven, I guess it's a exclusive club.  Anyone in your family not going to heaven?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say the bible says blacks and whites shouldn't marry. That's something Christians told me.
> ...



NASA's Perseverance rover snapped a photo on Sunday (April 4) that appeared to show a rainbow arcing across the dusty Martian sky. The striking image spread quickly across social media, as did the "rainbow" explanation, prompting NASA to step in with the real story. 









						No, the Perseverance rover didn't spot a rainbow on Mars
					

It's just a lens flare.




					www.space.com
				




"Many have asked: Is that a rainbow on Mars? No. Rainbows aren't possible here. Rainbows are created by light reflected off of round water droplets, but there isn't enough water here to condense, and it's too cold for liquid water in the atmosphere. This arc is a lens flare," agency officials wrote Tuesday via Perseverance's official Twitter account, @NASAPersevere. 

But you don't believe NASA right?  Because it believes in Man Made Global Climate Change.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say the bible says blacks and whites shouldn't marry. That's something Christians told me.
> ...



A number of attempts were made to use the Bible to justify those bans on interracial marriage. Vague assertions were made that God intended for the races to remain separate. Some verses (Exodus 34:10-16, 2 Corinthians 6:14, etc.) were quoted in part or otherwise out of context in an attempt to show that God opposed interracial marriage. 


Some people insist that the Bible meant for the races to remain pure, therefore prohibiting any kind of interracial marriage. Usually two biblical texts are drawn upon to support that view. One is the fact that Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. As you recall, Shem received a patriarchal blessing, and an enlargement of that was given to Japheth. Ham, because he looked upon his father’s nakedness, was cursed. “Cursed be Canaan” was the malediction that Noah pronounced on Ham and his descendants. Some have neatly contrived from the three sons of Noah, three survivors of the flood, that this is the historic basis for the three basic generic types of human beings: the Caucasian, the Negroid, and the Mongoloid. They claim that this is the biblical justification for there being a curse put on the black race, and white people should have no intermarriage with them. This was cited, for example, in the early documents of Mormonism, which was a great embarrassment to them when it was made public a few years ago.

Others go back to Creation, where we read that God created everything “after its kind.” People say that this is the divine order of things in creation, that God made things according to their kind, and his intent was that they should stay according to their kind.

Also, the bible justified slavery.  









						How Antebellum Christians Justified Slavery - JSTOR Daily
					

After Emancipation, the Protestant denominations that had been in the vanguard of the defense of slavery refused to revise their proslavery views. In their minds, slavery had been divinely sanctioned.




					daily.jstor.org


----------



## Hollie (Apr 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


You seem to confuse terms and definitions. Your appeals to magic and supernaturalism at the hands of your gods are no different. They both require a break from reality and rely on “,,, because I say so”, nonsense.

There is no reason to accept claims that magic and supernaturalism are responsible for life on the planet. You have made no case either for the existence of your polytheistic gods or your gods having any involvement in the formation of the planet. Your insistence on a 6,000 year old, flat planet formed by the magical hands of your gods is ludicrous. You tacitly admit as much when the entirety of your argument relies on “... because the Bible says so”.

So..... you’re really suggesting that your gods are factory workers on an assembly line gluing, bolting and fashioning human and animal parts into the   Life we see today.

Fascinating!


----------



## Hollie (Apr 7, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


ID’iot creationers have won nothing. They lost spectacularly in their decades long attempts to force their brand of angry, fundamentalist Christianity into the public schools. The ID’iot creationer ministries have been relegated to the status of mere curiosities; buffoonish examples of Jimmy Swaggert style preachers, frequently with phony “science” degrees from colleges that exist only on letterhead.

Biology doesn’t need any collection of magic or supernatural gods to spark life. We know that’s true because life has existed on the planet for as long as 3.7 billion years. The charlatans at ID’iot creationer ministries could always attempt to refute the above by submitting their research papers and data for peer review by the relevant science community. You might want to submit your research supporting a flat, 6,000 year old planet.

When can we expect the ID’iot creationer ministries to do so?






__





						Early Life on Earth – Animal Origins
					

Learn what fossil evidence reveals about the origins of the first life on Earth, from bacteria to animals, including the phyla we know today.




					naturalhistory.si.edu
				



The *earliest life* forms we know of were microscopic organisms (microbes) that left signals of their presence in rocks about 3.7 billion years old. The signals consisted of a type of carbon molecule that is produced by living things.


----------



## Bezukhov (Apr 7, 2021)

> *When Is An Evolution Scientist Ever Going To Admit The Other Side May Be Right?*



When your side tells us which God it is without killing each other.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 7, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> God of the gaps. What we don’t know must be god.


Aren't you happy you revived this dead thread you ******* Moron?
(and you only learned 'god of the gaps' from ME.)
`


----------



## james bond (Apr 7, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You're all over the place and way off topic.  This should be in the R&E section.

This isn't what's stated in the Bible.  You're off in terms of what created everything "after its kind."  I think you're referring to Genesis 1:25.

Anyway, do you believe God created everything and that's why the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here?  Genesis, not abiogenesis.


----------



## james bond (Apr 7, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You confuse supernaturalism of God and the life he created (more supernaturalism) with naturalism.  We find naturalism can't happen without God and science backs it up.

Otherwise, your side would've disproved creation science and we would see evidence for apes being bipedal. We would have intelligent life on other planets.  We would see life from non-life.  There have been enough experiments on it hasn't there?  Instead, the answer is negative and ToE is still a hypothesis.  The billions of years is just silly because no one can related to that kind of long period of time.  The Earth may not be here due to the catastrophism.  There would be much more layers on the seafloor.  Remember, your side was found wrong with believing in an infinite universe instead of an infinite God.


----------



## james bond (Apr 7, 2021)

Bezukhov said:


> > *When Is An Evolution Scientist Ever Going To Admit The Other Side May Be Right?*
> 
> 
> 
> When your side tells us which God it is without killing each other.



The Christian God as he explained his creation best and science backs it up.


----------



## james bond (Apr 7, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Aren't you happy you revived this dead thread you ******* Moron?
> (and you only learned 'god of the gaps' from ME.)



I don't think anyone has learned anything from you as you just spout ad hominem attacks and do not explain science well.  You don't answer other people's questions nor even make a logical argument.  sealybobo knows about the Christian religion, Catholicism, and Mormonism, but just in a general sense of what he's heard.  From it, he can put together a logical argument.  You can't because you're a moron.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 8, 2021)

abu afak said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > God of the gaps. What we don’t know must be god.
> ...


Your threads you started were dead and boring.  This title grabs people.  If the person reading it is dumb enough to believe in religion then they were already that way before they entered this subject.

I agree with you on politics I never bump a thread title that is negative to my sides position.  For example, if the thread title is China Joe.....I don't even respond.  Let that thread die.

But here, I'm open to the possibility that god exists.  I want to hear their evidence.  Funny they got none.

I like it when they say something can't come from nothing so that must mean god made life.  Yet we know that we come from suns that exploded.  The building blocks of life are inside suns.  So we know how we were made.  No god needed.

Then they'll say god made the Suns.  But we know gases turn into suns.  We know the process of how stars are born and die.  No god needed.

So then it comes down to the big bang.  They think god must have done it.  And we don't know what done it.  So God of the Gaps.  Whatever we don't know, god did it.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 8, 2021)

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Aren't you happy you revived this dead thread you ******* Moron?
> ...


Don't forget I grew up Greek Orthodox.  And I've looked into other Christian sects.  And I've read the bible.  Then read it again.  Then just read the Red Letter Bible.  

So it's not just what I heard once from some guy a long time ago.  

You know the only difference between a fairy tale and religion?  A fairy tale happened a long time ago in a far off place.  Religion did too.  Only you give these religious events dates.  Rough dates of course.  This stuff happened after all a long time ago in a far off place.  Nothing from 2000 years ago survives to this day.  No artifacts.  No tables or chairs that Jesus the carpenter made for him.  No shrine his followers made for him.  No burial site.  No writings that his disciples actually wrote themselves.  If you can show me the book Paul or Luke wrote in please do.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 8, 2021)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


No I don't believe that God created our observable universe.  Do you know the difference between observable universe and universe?  There is no end to the universe.  In every direction it does on forever.  But our observable universe has an edge.  There may or may not be other universes beyond our observable universe.  Since space goes on forever in every direction I doubt this is the only bubble in the entire universe.

Some wonder if two universes ever merge into one.  For example we are now seeing light that is coming from further than 14 billion light years.  How is that possible if the big bang happened 13.8 billion years ago?  How can we see light coming from 20 billion light years away?

Does Genesis say?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 8, 2021)

james bond said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> > > *When Is An Evolution Scientist Ever Going To Admit The Other Side May Be Right?*
> ...


The Christian gods never explained anything. Do you have some odd notion that the gods have ever spoken to anyone?

Where does science "back up" magic and supernaturalism? Does science "back up" a flat earth?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 8, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


You confuse your "... because I say so", claims with a relevant argument. There is nothing to indicate your gods created or anything else in nature. Naturalism has no requirement for your gods and  nothing in science "backs up" magic and supernaturalism. Where does science "back up" your gods making thunder and lighting?

Id'iot creationism has been disproved. Difficult to imagine how you missed that.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 8, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Disprove the idea that god one day POOFED land animals onto earth?  And your ancestors weren't even smart enough to say God POOFED thousands of first humans onto earth.  Instead the believed that Adam and Eve's kids fucked each other.  And Noah's kids fucked each other.

Your "theory" is ridiculous.  It's why science and evolution makes sense.  Of course all animals started in the water.  From single cell organisms to complex life, then out of the water and so there never was one first man.  There were hundreds of thousands of apes that evolved into man.

Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, _Homo sapiens_, has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans and the great apes (large apes) of Africa -- chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called “pygmy chimpanzees”) and gorillas -- share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa. 









						Introduction to Human Evolution
					






					humanorigins.si.edu


----------



## james bond (Apr 10, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Don't forget I grew up Greek Orthodox. And I've looked into other Christian sects. And I've read the bible. Then read it again. Then just read the Red Letter Bible.
> 
> So it's not just what I heard once from some guy a long time ago.
> 
> You know the only difference between a fairy tale and religion? A fairy tale happened a long time ago in a far off place. Religion did too. Only you give these religious events dates. Rough dates of course. This stuff happened after all a long time ago in a far off place. Nothing from 2000 years ago survives to this day. No artifacts. No tables or chairs that Jesus the carpenter made for him. No shrine his followers made for him. No burial site. No writings that his disciples actually wrote themselves. If you can show me the book Paul or Luke wrote in please do.



You may have read, but you sound like you never had faith.  It takes faith first, i.e. leap of faith, or just reading the Bible won't do it.  I had it when I was a child going to Catholic school (not a Catholic today from the experience), but somehow knew there was a God from experiencing nature as part of the boy scouts at the school.  I don't know how else to explain it as providing evidence to atheists/agnostics doesn't work.  The other thing is Satan and he likes to hide.  He's much more powerful than you think, so I can understand why atheists/agnostics won't change until it's too late.

The fairy tale is ToE (except natural selection), evolutionary thinking, and evolutionary cosmology.  I've read it and still re-read it after hearing things here and I know it's fake science and atheist.



sealybobo said:


> Disprove the idea that god one day POOFED land animals onto earth? And your ancestors weren't even smart enough to say God POOFED thousands of first humans onto earth. Instead the believed that Adam and Eve's kids fucked each other. And Noah's kids fucked each other.
> 
> Your "theory" is ridiculous. It's why science and evolution makes sense. Of course all animals started in the water. From single cell organisms to complex life, then out of the water and so there never was one first man. There were hundreds of thousands of apes that evolved into man.
> 
> Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, _Homo sapiens_, has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans and the great apes (large apes) of Africa -- chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called “pygmy chimpanzees”) and gorillas -- share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa.



I stated that the chicken came before the egg and it was proven by scientific method.  The shell of the egg contains a protein that comes from the ovaries of the hen.  We know from Genesis that God only created adult animals except for the Son of Man when he came to Earth.

Science and evolution are opposites.  Evolution is fake science.  You can't even show how sexual reproduction originated from a cell.  You can't even show how a cell originated.  You don't have anything to show how amino acids (23 of the right kind) can form a protein.  Abiogenesis was disproved by the swan neck flask experiment.  Moreover, there are no evidence for intelligent aliens nor any kind of simple alien life.  You can't even prove an ape can be bipedal.  Thus, the evidence is ToE, evolutionary thinking, and evolutionary cosmology is all lies.  The Earth can't be millions or billions of years old as we cannot relate to how long of time that is.  Besides, the layers of the Earth would be much, much, much thicker than it is today.  The evidence is there for a young Earth such as soft tissue still remaining in dinosaur fossils and that it can be radiocarbon dated.

At least, I provided a scenario where if I was atheist, then what it would take to convince me that atheism is wrong.


----------



## james bond (Apr 10, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Bezukhov said:
> ...



.  It would be a waste of time explaining it to you.

Instead, why don't you try to provide evidence for evolution and atheism?



Hollie said:


> You confuse your "... because I say so", claims with a relevant argument. There is nothing to indicate your gods created or anything else in nature. Naturalism has no requirement for your gods and nothing in science "backs up" magic and supernaturalism. Where does science "back up" your gods making thunder and lighting?
> 
> Id'iot creationism has been disproved. Difficult to imagine how you missed that.



None of it has or else Christianity would not be here today.  Anyway, I never hear anything from evolutionists/atheists to change my mind.


----------



## james bond (Apr 10, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Disprove the idea that god one day POOFED land animals onto earth?



Already you lost the argument.  The falsification would be the land animals would not be on Earth or abiogenesis.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 11, 2021)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Disprove the idea that god one day POOFED land animals onto earth?
> ...


What? The land animals crawled out of the ocean.

And the whale was a land mammal that went back in the water.

what’s abiogenesis? Big word. Does it disprove evolution? Why don’t I know about it then? It disproves nothing.

tons of videos on evolution on you tube and there’s a good one that explains there is no first man. Humans evolved from a lesser species that walked on all fours and lived in trees. Trees disappeared and it forced our ancestors to walk upright. This gave us the ability to use our hands for tools, drawing and developing language. The first language was hand signals not verbal.

Theres so much evidence you have to disregard to deny evolution.

Anyways, our ancestor crawled out of the water. So did every land anupimals ancestors. No animal can start out on land without the poof theory that god poofed them here, and that ridiculous


----------



## Crick (Apr 11, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> I find it funny that creationists find evolution so far-fetched while believing people just popped out of thin air.



The problem is that it was their moms and dads who told them very early on that people just popped out of thin air.  I personally think teaching children religion is child abuse.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 11, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


You can find proof for biological evolution in the biological studies program in any US college and university, especially the leading research universities.


----------



## james bond (Apr 11, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> What? The land animals crawled out of the ocean.



Nobody ever saw it.  It didn't happen.  The fact is we do not see it today.



sealybobo said:


> And the whale was a land mammal that went back in the water.



Ditto.

You and your atheist scientists just agree with whatever someone makes up just to fit a theory.



sealybobo said:


> what’s abiogenesis? Big word. Does it disprove evolution? Why don’t I know about it then? It disproves nothing.



It's a big science word that is another name for spontaneous generation.  Both are fakery in order to support evolutionary origins.  No one has ever seen it happen and we do not find evidence for it anywhere in the universe.



sealybobo said:


> tons of videos on evolution on you tube and there’s a good one that explains there is no first man. Humans evolved from a lesser species that walked on all fours and lived in trees. Trees disappeared and it forced our ancestors to walk upright. This gave us the ability to use our hands for tools, drawing and developing language. The first language was hand signals not verbal.
> 
> Theres so much evidence you have to disregard to deny evolution.
> 
> Anyways, our ancestor crawled out of the water. So did every land anupimals ancestors. No animal can start out on land without the poof theory that god poofed them here, and that ridiculous



Watch this one.


One day the evolutionists, atheists, and atheist scientists will realize the TRUTH of CREATION and feel very sad for being so WRONG and believing in LIES.  The bottom line is life is SUPERNATURAL compared to life EVOLVED.


----------



## james bond (Apr 11, 2021)

Hollie said:


> You can find proof for biological evolution in the biological studies program in any US college and university, especially the leading research universities.



I learned evolution through my alma mater -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php.  Check it out sometimes.  I only posted it over 50x, but can compare it to creation science to see which is superior.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 11, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You can find proof for biological evolution in the biological studies program in any US college and university, especially the leading research universities.
> ...


Since ID'iot creationism is not science, you can't compare the two.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 11, 2021)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > What? The land animals crawled out of the ocean.
> ...


Youtube cartoons? 

You're not embarrassed by posting YouTube cartoons in the face of science research and evaluation?  

Well, the above is a rhetorical question, obviously. 

Anything on youtube about pulling rabbits out of a hat?


----------



## james bond (Apr 11, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Since ID'iot creationism is not science, you can't compare the two.



It's the d-farks evos who can't compare the two.  All one has to do for evo is to find a common ancestor and the evidence isn't there for a single one.

Otherwise, you'd be using it 100x a day here.



Hollie said:


> Youtube cartoons?
> 
> You're not embarrassed by posting YouTube cartoons in the face of science research and evaluation?
> 
> ...



Stupid farking idiot atheists.  You didn't watch it.  Didn't even get past the screen shot.  You didn't get into my link either.  It admits there is no answer in evolution for origins.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 11, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Since ID'iot creationism is not science, you can't compare the two.
> ...


Common ancestors are quite common. The theory of common descent with modification is a well documented in the world of the relevant sciences, not so much among the hyper-religious.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 11, 2021)

It's sad that functioning adults can be so handicapped by childish, magical beliefs. And the truth is so much more cool and interesting than the fairy tale.


----------



## james bond (Apr 12, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No, common ancestors are not common.  Otherwise, you would have proved it rn.

What you have are allele and that's about it.


----------



## james bond (Apr 12, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It's sad that functioning adults can be so handicapped by childish, magical beliefs. And the truth is so much more cool and interesting than the fairy tale.
> 
> View attachment 478861View attachment 478861



Now, what is that supposed to be?  Your relative?  Or another fake photoshop of your fairy tale of evovlution.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > What? The land animals crawled out of the ocean.
> ...


Nobody ever saw it?  I stopped reading after that.  You're an idiot.  No one ever saw Jesus walk on water either but you believe it.  And you believe Mary was a virgin.  You're an idiot.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You can find proof for biological evolution in the biological studies program in any US college and university, especially the leading research universities.
> ...


If 30 students learn something in a classroom, not everyone learns it equally.  You my friend didn't learn shit.  You may have sat through the class and you might have been listening but you didn't hear them.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 12, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It's sad that functioning adults can be so handicapped by childish, magical beliefs. And the truth is so much more cool and interesting than the fairy tale.
> 
> View attachment 478861View attachment 478861


You know what is cool?  Take a small seed in the mothers womb.  Look at it under a microscope.  I'm talking about very early on.  Then look at any other animal at that stage of development.  You can hardly tell the difference.  All life is related here on earth.  Unless of course two asteroids crashed and each of them carried life to this planet.  One could have carried the mammal seed and another asteroid could have brought the reptile seed.


----------



## james bond (Apr 12, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Nobody ever saw it? I stopped reading after that. You're an idiot. No one ever saw Jesus walk on water either but you believe it. And you believe Mary was a virgin. You're an idiot.



What a fucking liar you are!!!  Or the biggest idiot here!!!  That's tough as there are many libs to choose from.  Again, nobody ever saw an animal crawl out of the water, especially a whale that turned around and went back into the water.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Common descent with modification is among the most basic, best supported elements of biological evolution. You were taught otherwise at your madrassah but the science facts are only undeniable to the religious extremists.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody ever saw it? I stopped reading after that. You're an idiot. No one ever saw Jesus walk on water either but you believe it. And you believe Mary was a virgin. You're an idiot.
> ...


No one ever saw OJ kill his wife and Ron Goldman either.  Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Evolution happens over hundreds of thousands of years.  Your comebacks make you sound really dumb.  As if you are kidding.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody ever saw it? I stopped reading after that. You're an idiot. No one ever saw Jesus walk on water either but you believe it. And you believe Mary was a virgin. You're an idiot.
> ...


And no one ever saw Jonah get swallowed by a whale and live 3 days inside but a lot of you morons believe that happened.  Can I ask you a question?  What's wrong with you?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> No, common ancestors are not common. Otherwise, you would have proved it rn.
> 
> What you have are allele and that's about it.


Childish gibberish from a person who has no understanding of this material.


----------



## james bond (Apr 12, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Common descent with modification is among the most basic, best supported elements of biological evolution. You were taught otherwise at your madrassah but the science facts are only undeniable to the religious extremists.



>>Common descent with modification is among the most basic, best supported elements of biological evolution.<<

It's just natural selection that causes the changes.

It's just a hypothesis to assume there is a common ancestor.  I don't think you know about what you are talking about, so no use discussing these things with you.  You can go back to your ad hominem attacks because that's basically all you have.


----------



## james bond (Apr 12, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Childish gibberish from a person who has no understanding of this material.



Again, it's purely natural selection at work.  It's suppose to define evolution as they call it "descent with modification" because of so-called genetic changes.

Ad hominem attacks from another who has no argument to make.


----------



## james bond (Apr 12, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Again, you failed to show someone saw a fish walk out of the sea.  No such thing.  That makes you a liar!

Why don't you just punch yourself in the face several times?  You'll see stars better than a fish crawling out of the sea.

If what you say is true, then you should be able to recite the evidence as easy as I have been doing about creation science (instead of trying to change the subject), but you can't because no one actually saw it so it's just hypothesis.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


You can't see it stupid.  It happens over hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

Now you show me a guy walk on water.  Or a woman get pregnant without being fucked.  Sounds like she told Jesus' daddy a tall story.  He wouldn't have believed that so why do you?


----------



## Burgermeister (Apr 12, 2021)

Evolutionary biologists will admit that the the theory of evolution might be wrong around the same time that climate scientists admit that whatever the fuck they currently call what they believe might be wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Childish gibberish from a person who has no understanding of this material.
> ...


More childish gibberish. I will prove it:

Tell us what evidence of common ancestry would look like. Be very specific.


Now, we laugh.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 12, 2021)

Burgermeister said:


> Evolutionary biologists will admit that the the theory of evolution might be wrong around the same time that climate scientists admit that whatever the fuck they currently call what they believe might be wrong.


In other words, when good evidence to the contrary arises. Which will almost certainly be NEVER.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Common descent with modification is among the most basic, best supported elements of biological evolution. You were taught otherwise at your madrassah but the science facts are only undeniable to the religious extremists.
> ...


You are quite deficient when it comes to a science vocabulary so you might want to take some time and learn about the biological terms you rail against.

Here's a definition of hypothesis:What Is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis

A common ancestor for all living things is a hypothesis. The hypothesis finds support in the biological history of the planet.

You reject such a hypothesis because such a thing is in direct contradiction to your extremist religious belief of a 6,000 year old planet created by supernatural gods.

Here’s a chance to present the ID’iot creationer, “*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*”

Show us the magic.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


----------



## james bond (Apr 12, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Haha.  More of your circular reasoning in a square head.  No one has seen billions of years (evolution wants billions of years).  No one has even seen millions.

As I stated already, life is supernatural.  This is the crux of our argument.  Thus, one finds out how they did after they die.  I can imagine the atheists here finding out they were wrong their entire lives and that's why they regret it forever.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 12, 2021)

james bond , fun fact for you:

This:






Is more closely related to this:





Than it is to any of this:


----------



## james bond (Apr 12, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Adam and Eve, so we are one human race.

There's evidence for you know who here.  Evos claim A&E aren't it and that it happened from a single cell, mitosis, and melosis.  They get stuck when they have to explain how sexual reproduction happened.  Thus, there are no common ancestor in the evolutionary way.  It's just natural selection at work.

There.  I just disproved evolution.  Do I get a prize?


----------



## james bond (Apr 12, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond , fun fact for you:
> 
> This:
> 
> ...





Coelacanth is still living and still in the ocean .  You continue to believe in fairy tales.


----------



## james bond (Apr 12, 2021)

Hollie said:


> A common ancestor for all living things is a hypothesis. The hypothesis finds support in the biological history of the planet.



Except it's wrong and has been shown to be wrong by science, but the atheists won't believe it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> Adam and Eve


*provably false myth




james bond said:


> Coelacanth is still living and still in the ocean


Yes indeed! And it is more closely related to lungfish than to any other fish, and both are more closely related to humans than they are to any other fish.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > A common ancestor for all living things is a hypothesis. The hypothesis finds support in the biological history of the planet.
> ...


Your frantic screeching is a poor substitute for a supported argument which is why your frantic screeching is called a poor substitute for a supported argument.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Your prize is a dunce hat and a time out sitting in the corner.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Apr 13, 2021)

"It's extremely arrogant from scientists to come down from the ivory towers and make these declarations without understanding the social importance of belief systems."
"When you hear very famous scientists making pronouncements like ... cosmology has explained the origin of the universe and the whole, and we don't need God anymore. That's complete nonsense," he added.
"Because we have not explained the origin of the universe at all.” – Marcelo Gleiser, physicist at Dartmouth and winner of the 2018 Templeton Award

Read more: Physicist Marcelo Gleiser: 'Science does not kill God'


The most beautiful system of the Sun, Planets and Comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God. - Sir Isaac Newton


“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the Harvard University, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine.)


“Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist.)

“Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day.)


“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Herbert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)


“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)


“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.” (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)


“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.” (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)


“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)



“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.” (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.” (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)


“Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.” (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)


“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology.” (Dr. Arthur Koestler)

“The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of special creation.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.” (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

“One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.” (Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)

“Darwin’s evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress…..The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science….I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

“The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.” (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” (Dr. George Wald Evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

“The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

“Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts….These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)

“There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the “general theory of evolution,” and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.” (Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist)

“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life’s complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.” (Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner)


“Meanwhile, their [evolutionists] unproven theories will continue to be accepted by the learned and the illiterate alike as absolute truth, and will be defended with a frantic intolerance that has a parallel only in the bigotry of the darkest Middle Ages. If one does not accept evolution as an infallible dogma, implicitly and without question, one is regarded as an unenlightened ignoramus or is merely ignored as an obscurantist or a naive, uncritical fundamentalist.” (Dr. Alfred Rehwinkel)

“It is my conviction that if any professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully the assumptions upon which the macro-evolution doctrine rests, and the observational and laboratory evidence that bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubting the truth of this doctrine. Moreover, I believe that a scientifically sound creationist view of origins is not only possible, but it is to be preferred over the evolutionary one.” (Dean H. Kenyon, professor of biology at San Francisco State University)

“For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.” (Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means)

“I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” (Sir Julian Huxley, President of the United Nation’s Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization (UNESCO).)

“Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable.” (Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)

“Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleontology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about, but that is heresy.” (Dr. David Pilbeam, Professor of Anthropology at Yale University, American Scientist, vol 66, p.379, June 1978)

“If I knew of any Evolutionary transitionals, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them in my book, ‘Evolution’ ” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

“For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution….But there was not one thing I knew about it… So for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, “Can you tell me any one thing that is true?” I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, “Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School”….over the past few years….you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith…Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge.” (Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981)

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution.” (Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.)



“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible.” (Charles Darwin, “The origin of species by means of natural selection”)

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” (Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, “Evolution, Erratic Pace”)

“Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis, this must be admitted.” (Dr. T.H Morgan)

“The facts of paleontology seem to support creation and the flood rather than evolution. For instance, all the major groups of invertebrates appear “suddenly” in the first fossil ferrous strata (Cambrian) of the earth with their distinct specializations indicating that they were all created almost at the same time.” (Professor Enoch, University of Madras)

“It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual completely continuous transitional sequences.” (Dr. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard)

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Charles Darwin, “The Origin of Species”)

“I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know.” (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981)

“Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence.” (Dr. R. Kirk, “The Rediscovery of Creation,” in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.)

“It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back.” (Dr. I.L. Cohen, “Darwin Was Wrong:” A Study in Probabilities (1985)

“The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible.” (Dr. P. Lemoine, “Introduction: De L’ Evolution?” Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937)

“Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study.” (Dr. Steven Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].)

“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.” (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

“I have often thought how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law.” (Dr. Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London (1966) [an ichthyologist (expert on fish) in a 1988 address before a meeting of the Linnean Society in London])


"The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on…” (Stephen Hawking, considered the best known scientist since Albert Einstein, Austin American-Statesmen, October 19, 1997)


“Why then is not every Geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” (Charles Darwin)

“The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.” (Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)


Did you know that Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were born on the EXACT same date? February 12, 1809.
Perhaps the two most influential people in American History were born on the same day.

Abraham Lincoln's life resulted in slaves becoming free.

Charles Darwin's life resulted in free people becoming enslaved, by causing some to think that they are superior to others.

-------------------------------

Stalin and Hitler were mesmerized by Darwin's eugenics implication. They LOVED being in the superior race and Hitler set out to produce more Aryans and murder inferior Jews, as he saw them.
The Japanese did the same thing, bayoneting perhaps a million inferior Chinese civilians, and Philippino civilians.

Hitler was no Christian. In his SS schools, children were taught to pray to the Fuhrer. Numerous quotes establish Hitler's hatred of Judaism and Christianity, even though godless Leftists will deny the reality. So what's new.


“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.” (Charles Darwin, 1881, 3 July, “Life and Letters of Darwin, vol. 1, 316”)

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.” (Charles Darwin, The descent of Man, Chap. vi)

“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by mans attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than the woman. Whether deep thought, reason, or imagination or merely the use of the senses and hands…..We may also infer…..The average mental power in man must be above that of woman.” (Charles Darwin, “The descent of Man, pg. 566”)


“No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man…..it is simply incredible to think that…..he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites.” (Thomas Huxley, 1871, Lay Sermons, addresses and reviews)


“The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and the Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters, such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the 11 year old youth of the species homo-sapiens.” (Dr. H.F. Osborn, Director of the Museum of National History)


“Recapitulation provided a convenient focus for the persuasive racism of white scientists; they looked to the activities of their own children for comparison with normal adult behavior in lower races.” (Dr. Stephen J Gould, “Dr. Downs Syndrome” natural history, 1980)


*After seeing the impossibility of evolution, these scientists made the following observations that nobody makes regarding gravity, with which Darwinian evolutionists so love to compare their fable:*

“Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause. ‘Chance,’ ‘time,’ and ‘nature,’ are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a magical explanation for the existence of life…” (Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, pg. 418.)

“After chiding the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.” (Dr. Loren Eiseley, anthropologist, The Immense Journey, pg. 144.)

“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups.” (Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.)

“Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.” (Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)

“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

“The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination.” (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

“The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination.” (Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)

“We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, “The emperor has no clothes.” (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

“The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century.” (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.)

“9/10 of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view.” (Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)

“We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact.” (Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University)

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, “How did this ever happen?” (Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

“The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion….The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational.” (Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

“Evolution is faith, a religion.” (Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

“Darwin’s theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I’m quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather.” (Dr. David Berlinski)

“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to “bend” their observations to fit in with it.” (H.S. Lipson, Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138)

“A time-honored scientific tenet of faith.” (Professor David Allbrook)

“Darwinism has become our culture’s official creation myth, protected by a priesthood as dogmatic as any religious curia.” (Nancy Pearcey, “Creation Mythology,”pg. 23)

“When students of other sciences ask us what is now currently believed about the origin of species, we have no clear answer to give. Faith has given way to agnosticism. Meanwhile, though our faith in evolution stands unshaken we have no acceptable account of the origin of species.” (Dr. William Bateson, great geneticist of Cambridge)

“Chance renders evolution impossible.” (Dr. James Coppedge)

“It (evolution) is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it.” (Professor Phillip Johnson, “Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture,” pg. 9)

“Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science.” (Dr. James Conant [chemist and former president of Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.)

“George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. (Dr. Kenneth Hsu, “Reply,” Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177)

“Unfortunately for Darwin’s future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature…It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts.” (Dr. P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194)

“Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century…The origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle.” (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.)

“It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything or at least they are not science.” (George G. Simpson, “The Nonprevalence of Humanoids,” in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.)

“The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.” (Dr. Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

“There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution.” (Sir Cecil Wakely)

“It’s impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species.” (Dr. Richard Goldschmt, evolutionist. Founder of the “Hopeful Monster” theory.)

“Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities…Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.” (Larry Hatfield, “Educators Against Darwin,” Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96.)

“The theory of life that undermined ninteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and in its turn is being threatened by fresh ideas…In the past ten years has emerged a new breed of biologists who are scientifically respectable, but who have their doubts about Darwinism.” (Dr. B. Leith, scientist)

“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought’s after it…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” (Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer)

“Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.” (Albert Einstein)

“Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses.” (Dr. Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147)

“Evolution is baseless and quite incredible.” (Dr. John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in “The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought”)

“The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe.” (Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77)

“I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.” (H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.)

“In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory.” (Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)

“The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity.” (Dr. W.R. Thompson, world renowned Entomologist)

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extant that it’s been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.” (Malcolm Muggeridge)

“There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist..denies that this is so. It is simply a fact, Darwin’s theory and the fossil record are in conflict.” (Dr. David Berlinski)

“Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record.” (Time Magazine, Nov. 7, 1977)

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” (Dr. Ronald R. West)

“The evolutionary establishment fears creation science, because evolution itself crumbles when challenged by evidence. In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of public debates were arranged between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists. The latter scored resounding victories, with the result that, today, few evolutionists will debate. Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and the late Carl Sagan, while highly critical of creationism, all declined to debate.” (Dr. James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 241)

“I doubt if there is any single individual within the scientific community who could cope with the full range of [creationist] arguments without the help of an army of consultants in special fields.” (David M. Raup, “Geology and Creation,” Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History, Vol. 54, March 1983, p. 18)

“I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum…I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it’s so implausible when you look at the evidence.” (Dr. Johnathan Wells, author of the book, “Icons of Evolution”)

“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency–or, rather, Agency–must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” (Astronomer George Greenstein, “The Symbiotic Universe,” page 27)

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say “supernatural”) plan.” (Nobel laureate Arno Penzias, “Cosmos, Bios, and Theos,” page 83)

“Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces.” (George Sim Johnson “Did Darwin Get it Right?” The Wall Street Journal, October 15, 1999)

“The vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” (Werner von Braun, father of space science, “Gone Bananas,” World September 7, 2002)

“Faith does not imply a closed, but an open mind. Quite the opposite of blindness, faith appreciates the vast spiritual realities that materialists overlook by getting trapped in the purely physical.” (Sir John Templeton “the Humble Approach,” page 115)

“It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in numbers, has been rather carefully thought out…The seemingly miraculous concurrence of these numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design.” (Physicist Paul Davies, “God and the New Physics,” page 189)

“Would it not be strange if a universe without purpose accidentally created humans who are so obsessed with purpose?” (Sir John Templeton, “The Humble Approach: Scientists Discover God,” page 19)

“Set aside the many competing explanations of the Big Bang; something made an entire cosmos out of nothing. It is this realization–that something transcendent started it all–which has hard-science types…using terms like ‘miracle.'” (Gregg Easterbrook, “The New Convergence”)

“Perhaps the best argument…that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas…being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his or her theory.” (C. J. Isham, “Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process” page 378)

“Science and religion…are friends, not foes, in the common quest for knowledge. Some people may find this surprising, for there’s a feeling throughout our society that religious belief is outmoded, or downright impossible, in a scientific age. I don’t agree. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that if people in this so-called ‘scientific age’ knew a bit more about science than many of them actually do, they’d find it easier to share my views.” (Physicist John Polkinghorne, “Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity”)

“Science…has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. It follows that nature had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must have included any role for God.” (Professor Phillip E. Johnson, “The Church Of Darwin,” Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1999)

*Chance Renders Evolution Impossible*

“The probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is, 1 in 10 to the 161 power, using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began…for a minimum set of required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is, 1 in 10 to the 119,879 power. It would take, 10 to the 119,879 power, years on average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10 to the 119,831 times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119,831 zeros.” (Dr. James Coppege from, “The Farce of Evolution” page 71)

“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought’s after it…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” (Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British astronomer and mathematician)

“I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.” (George Gallup, the famous statistician)

“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.” (Sir Fred Hoyle, Highly respected British astronomer and mathematician)

“The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 to 10 to the 340,000,000. This number is 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there is only supposed to be approximately 10 to the 80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!” (Professor Harold Morowitz)

“The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place.” (Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability)

“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.”(Professor Richard Dawkins, an atheist)

“The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of special creation.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

“To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts.” (Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse, University of Paris & past-president of French Academy of Science.)

“It is emphatically the case that life could not arise spontaneously in a primeval soup from its kind.” (Dr. A.E Wilder Smith, chemist and former evolutionist)

“The idea of spontaneous generation of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even to the scale of the billions of years during which prebotic evolution occurred.” (Dr. Ilya Prigogine, Nobel Prize winner)

“The complexity of the simplest known type cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.” (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist)

“The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.” (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)

“Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts….These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)

“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life’s complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.” (Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner)

“The world is too complicated in all parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle—an architect.” (Scientist Allan Sandage)

“One may well find oneself beginning to doubt whether all this could conceivably be the product of an enormous lottery presided over by natural selection, blindly picking the rare winners from among numbers drawn at utter random…..nevertheless although the miracle of life stands “explained” it does not strike us as any less miraculous. As Francois Mauriac wrote, “What this professor says is far more incredible than what we poor Christians believe.” (French Biochemist and Nobel Prize winner, Jacques Monod, “Chance and Necessity.”)

“A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of infinite escape clauses. I believe we developed this practice to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude from classical quantum mechanical principles as Wigner demonstrated” (Sidney W. Fox, “The Origins of Pre-Biological Systems)

“In terms of their basic biochemical design….no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.” (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist)

“We have always underestimated the cell…The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines…Why do we call [them] machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.” (Bruce Alberts, President, National; Academy of Sciences “The Cell as a Collectrion of Protein Machines,” Cell 92, February 8, 1998)

“We should reject, as a matter of principle the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (Biochemist, Franklin M. Harold “The Way of the Cell,” page 205)

“Evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation.” (Professor Phillip E. Johnson)

“The simplicity that was once expected to be the foundation of life has proven to be a phantom; instead, systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them. Humanity has endured as the center of the heavens moved from the earth to beyond the sun, as the history of life expanded to encompass long-dead reptiles, as the eternal universe proved mortal. We will endure the opening of Darwin’s Black box” (Michael J. Behe, Biochemist “Darwin’s Black Box, pg. 252”)

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” (Dr. Francis Crick, biochemist, Nobel Prize winner, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, pg. 88)

“Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, evolutionism must as well, since the probabilities of random formation of life are so tiny as to require a ‘miracle’ for spontaneous generation tantamount to a theological argument.” (Dr. Chandra Wickramasinge, cited in, Creation vs Evolution, John Ankerberg, pg. 20.)

“Complex molecules that are essential to particular organisms often have such a vast information content as…to make the theory of evolution impossible.” (Bird, Origin of Species Revisited, Vol. 1, pg. 71)

“A close inspection discovers an empirical impossibility to be inherent in the idea of evolution.” (Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Swedish botanist and geneticist, English Summary of Synthetische Artbildung, pg. 1142-43, 1


----------



## ChemEngineer (Apr 13, 2021)

*Evolution - The Religion

 Charles Darwin, whom many consider to be the Father of evolution, said that it had become a religion even during his life time. He stated, " I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions wondering over all the time, over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them." *


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 13, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> *Evolution - The Religion
> 
> Charles Darwin, whom many consider to be the Father of evolution, said that it had become a religion even during his life time. He stated, " I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions wondering over all the time, over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them." *


And not a shred of science in any of that. This is how religion handicaps your brain... You think these authoritative declarations have value. Because that is how your religiosity works.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 13, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> "It's extremely arrogant from scientists to come down from the ivory towers and make these declarations without understanding the social importance of belief systems."
> "When you hear very famous scientists making pronouncements like ... cosmology has explained the origin of the universe and the whole, and we don't need God anymore. That's complete nonsense," he added.
> "Because we have not explained the origin of the universe at all.” – Marcelo Gleiser, physicist at Dartmouth and winner of the 2018 Templeton Award
> 
> ...



More of your gawd awful cut and paste tirades.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 13, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> *Evolution - The Religion
> 
> Charles Darwin, whom many consider to be the Father of evolution, said that it had become a religion even during his life time. He stated, " I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions wondering over all the time, over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them." *



*Another fraudulent “quote” by the religious extremist. I can’t help but notice how the hyper-religious are so often just dishonest hacks.*


----------



## james bond (Apr 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Adam and Eve
> ...



Adam and Eve is true.  How else can we have eternal life (supernatural)?  How else can we have sexual reproduction?  How else can we have death even with eternal life (their sin)?  How else can you have proteins?  How else can you have human intelligence?  All of this is evidence for God.

With the coelacanth, we can see that it never developed feet and started to walk on land.  Thus, science does not back up evolutionary thinking.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Talking snakes are true?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> Adam and Eve is true.


False. It is provably false. Sorry.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> With the coelacanth, we can see that it never developed feet and started to walk on land.


So? Nobody has suggested that. This is one of those times when your ignorance of evolution really shines brightly.


----------



## james bond (Apr 14, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



You should get that because you can't prove evolution.  No one has seen evolution happen.  Otherwise, we would see creatures coming out of the sea and walking on land.  After all, you are claiming coelacanth is billions of years old.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> No one has seen evolution happen.


Lie.


----------



## james bond (Apr 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > With the coelacanth, we can see that it never developed feet and started to walk on land.
> ...



C'mon, you know what I mean.  We know there is no common ancestor of the coelacanth and lungfish.  Otherwise, you would have brought that up.  Another common ancestor that no one has ever seen.  We do not have any evidence of fish - common ancestor going from gills to lungs.  It's another fairy tale.


----------



## james bond (Apr 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > No one has seen evolution happen.
> ...



The physical evidence isn't there for any common ancestor, so it's a lie.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Actually, that's a rather embarrassing admission of your ignorance.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> C'mon, you know what I mean.


I do. You make this same error in every thread. You clearly know less than nothing about evolution. It's a childlike error. "Why are there still monkeys, then?"


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> The physical evidence isn't there for any common ancestor, so it's a lie.


That wasn't what you claimed, liar. Lying on top of lies. And this statement by you is also an embarrassing lie. Lies make Baby Jesus cry.


----------



## james bond (Apr 15, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I'll take that as an admission of not seeing evolution happen.


----------



## james bond (Apr 15, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > The physical evidence isn't there for any common ancestor, so it's a lie.
> ...



Where is your evidence?  It just goes to show that you are still waiting for it to happen even tho you say it's already has haha.

It means you believe in billions of years old fairy tales.  You can't even describe what happens in millions of years.  Can you describe what happens in 50 thousand years?  100?  1 million?  You can't and that shows I am right, right, right.

I can figure these things out while you just can't due to your atheist religion and belief in fairy tale science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> Where is your evidence?


MY evidence? Its not "my" evidence, you weirdo. If you cant find or don't understand the evidence that has convinced the entire scientific community, that's your problem for being ignorant and handicapped by magical thinking. Not mine.


----------



## james bond (Apr 15, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Where is your evidence?
> ...



The scientific atheist community.  Atheist science is just fake.  Otherwise, your side would've won already.  Instead, it's my side that has won due to the Bible.


----------



## james bond (Apr 15, 2021)

I don't know if atheists here have experienced regret, but you will after you die.  The god over the power of death will see to it that you do.

God's top commandment is:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."  It means that he is a jealous God and through his infinite wisdom gives us directions for our lives.  What do you think I believe in no God nor gods means to him?  A slap in the face for all the things he's done for you?  Science and religion are two sides of the same coin.  Both seek the truth.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> The scientific atheist community.


Lie. Plenty of scientists are theists and accept evolution as fact. Same for plenty of religious people. Geez Bond, your lies have really been ramping up lately. Have you been to the doctor for an eval recently? Are you experiencing incontinence?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


You can make those childlike, self assurances as you wish. Seeing the process of evolution is common. Ignorance and denial on your part is your waking nightmare to deal with.


----------



## james bond (Apr 17, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



All I am requesting is the evidence, but all I get concealment.  Evolution doesn't happen, so atheists end up hiding.


----------



## james bond (Apr 17, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Plenty of scientists are theists and accept evolution as fact.



Liar.  Most evolution scientists are atheists.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Odd that you deny evidence for evolution when all of the most prestigious research universities have biological studies programs which collaborate with industry.

I suppose the science curriculum at your Jimmy Swaggert madrassah was not focused on much beside snake handling.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Apr 17, 2021)

james bond said:


> Liar.  Most evolution scientists are atheists.



James, I am done pleading with you to stop wasting everyone's time feeding these hateful trolls.  You have joined them on my Ignore List.   Sorry.


----------



## james bond (Apr 18, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



One hand washes the other (higher education and industry).  Evolution is just a hypothesis to explain things without the supernatural.  One doesn't really need it to do industry.  Or maybe you can explain how it is used.

Educators can be wrong.  What students learned in college in the 60s thru the 80s could be outdated today, e.g. eternal universe.  Students today have to learn it to pass a course.  Doesn't mean the smart ones nor I believe in it because it could be wrong.  They have the same questions that I bring up here.


----------



## james bond (Apr 18, 2021)

One of the best evidence for design is how our brains work.  It is formed such that it can work as a closed loop system or open loop system.  Open loop systems are simpler and can be based on time.  For example, you tell your Alexa, Siri, or Google Assistant to set a timer for five minutes.  It does that for you and sounds an alarm.  Another could be answering that long list of emails waiting to be answered or discarded.  You can look at the title and who is it from to get simple information, to read it if required, and then send off a quick reply.  A few could take longer and would require something more than using your open loops.  You have to use closed loops in your brain.  More on that later.

My point is Darwin didn't know any of this as it was beyond his time.  This stuff could not just come from what he made up.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Biological evolution is both a hypothesis and demonstrated fact. The facts support the hypothesis. Conversely, there is no hypothesis about magic and supernaturalism that is supportable by facts, there are no facts that support magic and supernaturalism.

Actually, there are no questions you bring up here. Your comments are really little more than a Sunday morning Jimmy Swaggert re-run.


----------



## james bond (Apr 18, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Liar.  Most evolution scientists are atheists.
> ...



I'm sure they have you on their ignore list, too, unless they want to get sleepy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 18, 2021)

james bond said:


> Liar. Most evolution scientists are atheists.


That doesn't make me a liar. I said there are plenty who aren't. Bond, is there something wrong with your brain? You are saying very stupid things that have nothing to do with religion. Just very stupid mistakes of logic and fact.


----------



## james bond (Apr 19, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Liar. Most evolution scientists are atheists.
> ...



Sure it does as my statement afterward shows.  Are you claiming that you didn't know?  I'll buy you are _ignorant_ if that makes you feel better.


----------



## james bond (Apr 19, 2021)

What about this?  Do you think one's religion influences their belief in science?

If one believes in Christianity, then the Bible explains everything and how we are here.

If one believes in atheism, then today's evolution theory or hypothesis explains how we are here.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sure it does as my statement afterward shows


You moron...both statements can be true. You are fucking stupid.


----------



## james bond (Apr 19, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Sure it does as my statement afterward shows
> ...



Lol.  For farking stupid, you just need to look in the mirror.

So you are saying there are plenty of evolution scientists who believe in Christianity.  Plenty usually means the majority or a skosh below 50%.  Where is your support for this statement?

I got mine -- "Are all evolutionists atheists?" Are all evolutionists atheists - creation.com


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> So you are saying there are plenty of evolution scientists who believe in Christianity. Plenty usually means the majority or a skosh below 50%.


haha....look at you. How embarrassing. I don't know what has happened to your brain, but you have turned into a fking moron.


----------



## james bond (Apr 19, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > So you are saying there are plenty of evolution scientists who believe in Christianity. Plenty usually means the majority or a skosh below 50%.
> ...



I knew you didn't have any evidence with a link.  It's basically the same with abiogenesis, origin of the universe (what existed before the big bang), egg coming before the chicken, amino acids forming a protein molecule, intelligent aliens, just any form of life on another place besides Earth, logical argument for evolution such as KCA, and more.

Thus, all you and Hollie have are atheist ad hominem attacks.  It has to be the stupidest thing ever.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


No reason to drag me into your baseless claims of supernatural gods and magic.


----------

