# Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.



## GISMYS (Jul 22, 2014)

The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!

I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.

I answered, "The reason scientific theories change is because we don't know everything, isn't it? We don't have all the evidence."
 "Yes, that's right," he said.
 I replied, "But, we will never know everything."
 "That's true," he answered.
 I then stated, "We will always continue to find new evidence."
 "Quite correct," he said. I replied, "That means we can't be sure about anything."
 "Right," he said.
"That means we can't be sure about evolution."
 "Oh, no! Evolution is a fact," he blurted out. He was caught by his own logic. He was demonstrating how his view was determined by his bias.

Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But the beliefs that these models are built on are not. 

The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the religion to which they are committed. Christians need to wake up to this. Evolution is a religion; it is not a science!
Evolution is Religion


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 22, 2014)

The Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 1: 18-25: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident to them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." Paul was a lawyer, a lawyer of the Torah. He used legal methods of persuasion to convince people of the truths of creation, their need to recognize the Creator revealed in the Bible and their need of a Savior. Paul said that the wrath of God comes against those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. How can he justify his statement that there are those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness? He says that God has made Himself evident to them. How can Paul say that God has made Himself evident to them? He says because that which is known about God is made obvious to them through the things that He has made. Paul uses the argument from design. He says that since we see obviously created objects we must know that there is a Designer/Maker. Paul argues that evolutionists are without excuse, reason, or defense. Paul says that they blindly hold fast to their beliefs in spite of the evidence to the contrary. In counter argument Paul points out that Christians have an evidence based faith. Christians have an excuse, reason and defense. Paul presses his argument further to point out that those who are evolutionists become futile in their speculations, in their fable telling. Their hearts, their spirits, become darkened. They claim wisdom and knowledge that they do not have. They invent stories which they cannot support. They build a house of cards trying to defend their position. Their stories are plausible and logical, but all things that are plausible and all things that are logical are not necessarily true. Paul writes that those who accept evolutionism are fools. Today the word "fools" is not necessarily a strong word. Even the most intelligent person might make a foolish mistake now and then. If you drive up to a street corner and turn right when you should have turned left, it might be said that you did something foolish. But, that is not the word Paul used 2,000 years ago. In Greek, Paul wrote that those who accept evolutionism are "morons." A more modern translation would be that they become idiots. Those are harsh words, indeed. How can Paul justify such harsh rhetoric? He says it because those who knowingly reject the truth of Gods existence have exchanged the worship of the One true Creator for the worship of those things which He has created. They worship trees and animals instead of God. They have exchanged the truth of God for a lie. If you exchange a lie for the truth, that is a good idea. If you exchange the truth for a lie, that is a bad idea. Paul declares in no uncertain terms that those who accept evolution have exchanged the truth for a lie. They have made an obviously poor decision - See more at: Creation Worldview Ministries: Is the earth 4,600,000,000 years old? Or, is the earth only 2,191,000 days (6,000 years) old?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jul 22, 2014)

(skims for the science part...)

Hmm...


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jul 22, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> (skims for the science part...)
> 
> Hmm...


(skims for the well thought out response part...)

Hmm...


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 22, 2014)

Evolution is a scientifically established fact.  No scientist is questioning that it is real.  The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening.  You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 22, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> Evolution is a scientifically established fact.  No scientist is questioning that it is real.  The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening.  You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.



Unfortunately, it's a theory - not a fact - It's the *Theory of Evolution* - untill someonme invents a Time Machine it will remain a theory.  It's a theory that I somewhat agree with - however it has alot of holes in it .

One primary hole being the absense of intermediate species or transitional fossils with the geological evidence. 



> Transitional fossils are the remains of those creatures which should be found &#8216;in-between&#8217; one kind of creature and another kind. For example, evolutionists have long sought  the &#8216;missing link&#8217; between ape and human&#8212;some sort of half human/half ape intermediate form. None has ever been found, though many candidates have come and gone. Amplified, no doubt, by the lure of prestige, fame and fortune, the desire to discover such a fossil has led some even to fabricate evidence, such as with the famous Piltdown Man hoax. In that case, though the perpetrator has never been definitively identified, a human skull was &#8216;planted&#8217; with an ape&#8217;s jaw which was crudely &#8216;doctored&#8217;. The result fooled the world for decades into thinking this was proof of human evolution.




And your comment re:Gravity - uh sorry to burst your bubble - but Gravity is  a fact , and uh yes but I'm sorry they do understand how it works.....*.You must be a Liberal - Right ? *


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 22, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a scientifically established fact.  No scientist is questioning that it is real.  The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening.  You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.
> ...



Wow....   that's pretty much all I can say to this.  Just.... wow.


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 22, 2014)

The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the FALSE religion to which they are committed. Christians need to wake up to this. Evolution is a FALSE religion; it is not a science!


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 22, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



*You didn't answer the question -you're a Liberal Right ? * I'd really hate to think that someone as scientifically illiterate as you seem to be could be anything but an ignorant Liberal .


----------



## PredFan (Jul 22, 2014)

Creationists attack evolution because they cannot support creation. Are there holes in the theory of evolution? Sure there are. But here's the important facts:

There is real factual data that supports evolution.
There is no factual data of any kind that supports creation.


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 22, 2014)

PredFan said:


> Creationists attack evolution because they cannot support creation. Are there holes in the theory of evolution? Sure there are. But here's the important facts:
> 
> There is real factual data that supports evolution.
> There is no factual data of any kind that supports creation.



SATAN IS A LIAR AND THE FATHER OF LIARS!!! and you??


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 22, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



Yeah.  I'm sure you do think that.  Just.... wow.


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 22, 2014)

Tenets of Scientific Creationism

1.The physical universe of space, time, matter and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
2.The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
3.Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
4.The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
5.Earth pre-history, as preserved especially in the crustal rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of uniformitarian process rates. There is therefore no a priori reason for not considering the many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to the scientific evidences that most of the earth's fossiliferous sediments were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
6.Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates. Since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, however, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention must be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
7.The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally perfect created order.
8.Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there does exist ultimate purpose and meaning in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation, and it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
The Tenets of Creationism


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jul 22, 2014)

PredFan said:


> Creationists attack evolution because they cannot support creation.


Evolutionists attack Creationism because they cannot support Evolution.


----------



## PredFan (Jul 22, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Creationists attack evolution because they cannot support creation. Are there holes in the theory of evolution? Sure there are. But here's the important facts:
> ...



I'm not Satan. I'll bet that many liberals think I am though.

Where is the lie in my post?


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 22, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



You certainly do have alot of WOWs - is that the sound of air escaping from your hollow head, or did you just fart ?  

Anyway - you just answered ny question whether you know it or not - you're just another ignorant Liberal .


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 22, 2014)

PredFan said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



BELIEVERS expose the theory of evolution for what it is =a SILLY,IGNORANT THEORY invented by sin loving GOD REJECTORS that fear their final judgment day.


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 22, 2014)

There are gaps in our understanding of quantum physics but that doesn't stop you from using technology developed from such theories such as the computer you are using right now.


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 22, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> There are gaps in our understanding of quantum physics but that doesn't stop you from using technology developed from such theories such as the computer you are using right now.



TRY TO THINK!!! MAN'S ABILITY to think is good proof evolution is just a silly theory. Man was created in GOD'S image,we think(some do) GOD gave us rule on earth.


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 22, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> > There are gaps in our understanding of quantum physics but that doesn't stop you from using technology developed from such theories such as the computer you are using right now.
> ...



God is created in man's image, bud.


----------



## PredFan (Jul 22, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



Again I ask, where is the lie in my post?


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 22, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > Zmrzlina said:
> ...



That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 22, 2014)

PredFan said:


> Creationists attack evolution because they cannot support creation. Are there holes in the theory of evolution? Sure there are. But here's the important facts:
> 
> There is real factual data that supports evolution.
> There is no factual data of any kind that supports creation.



Bravo !  

However - in defense of Creationism I would point out that there are also theories that attempt to reconcile the two.   Such as the 7 day lineage of the biblical creation story being in sequential alignment with the actual appearance of various life forms and geological as well as  stellar events.


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 22, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



How else would you explain why a supernatural entity responsible for all of creation having the same stuff in between the legs as those in power on Earth.  How friggin' convenient.


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 22, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



So Gismys - before God created the Heavens and Earth -How long was a Day ?  Was it still 24 hours even before the sun was circling the Earth [Or vice versa depending on your vantage point]


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 22, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > Zmrzlina said:
> ...



ALMIGHTY GOD IS SPIRIT!! IT IS OUR SPIRIT THAT IS IN THE IMAGE OF GOD.  Duh.


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 22, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > Zmrzlina said:
> ...



Plato Or maybe Aristotle - [one of those smart ass Greeks from way back when]  once initiated a school of thought that stated that if sheep could think as Men - Their God would look like a Sheep.


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 22, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



A 24 hour day is a social construct to begin with.


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 22, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



GOD IS OUTSIDE OF TIME. TIME(DAYS) WAS CREATED FOR MAN NOT GOD!! TO GOD aday is like 1000 years and 1000 years is as a day!!!


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 22, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



Exactly, but what I was trying to draw out of GISMYS is the concession that the 7 Days of creation in Genesis were indefinite time periods in the context in which they were used - not necc.the sunrise/sunset scenario of which we are accustomed


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 22, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



Right - *God is Timeless * [Infinite] and Time is the constraint which binds Man to the Earth Plane - conquest of Time would then be the next level of Spiritual Evolution - do you agree ?

2 Peter 3  But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord *a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.*


Revelation 1:8
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." 


Revelation 21:6
He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. "


Revelation 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Quoted From Catholic St. John Bosco :
"God has neither past nor future; everything is present to Him, everything at a single point of time. Nothing eludes God. No person, no place is distant from Him"

Quoted From Zoroaster , a forerunner of Christianity
&#8220;O&#8217; Mazda, when I was looking for you with my wisdom and speculation faculties and tried to find you with the eye of my heart, I recognized that you are the starter and the end of everything"

Indra of Tibet, a Hindu god , bearing a strong likeness to Jesus Christ was worshiped as a " god who had existed as a spirit from all eternity"

*Creationism and Evolution are not irreconcileable -GreenBean *


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 22, 2014)

there are many different beliefs about what the science of evolution teaches.....
I have had people on this board tell me that gravity evolved....
I have had people on this board tell me that life itself evolved....
I have had people on this board tell me that the first single celled organism evolved from molecules of organic chemicals....
I have had people on this board tell me that human beings evolved from the first single celled organism....
what science has demonstrated about evolution is that both yellow butterflies and blue butterflies have evolved from green butterflies......

I will believe what science has demonstrated about evolution, but not what people on this board believe about evolution........


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 22, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> Christians need to wake up to this. Evolution is a religion; it is not a science!


 
I'm not sure if you really understand the science here but there are two distinct parts of evolution.  One is the FACT that we've all decended from a common ancestor.  The other is the THEORY behind the mechanism of evolution.  It is not unlike gravity.  Gravity is a FACT, anyone who doesn't believe that is so is welcome to jump off a building.  We have THEORIES as to how gravity works but none are proven.  Newton came up with one theory and Einstein came up with another.  The THEORY changed but the FACT remained.

What makes evolution different from creationism is the difference between science and faith.  Anyone can study the natural world and discover evolution because the evidence is there for all to see.  Not withstanding Paul's assertion that we all know God is there, no one can come to the story of Genesis by studying the natural world, they need to be told.  And since there is no physical evidence for creationism and certainly no mechanism for it, it needs to be taken on faith.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> there are many different beliefs about what the science of evolution teaches.....
> I have had people on this board tell me that gravity evolved....
> I have had people on this board tell me that life itself evolved....
> I have had people on this board tell me that the first single celled organism evolved from molecules of organic chemicals....
> ...


 
You can believe in evolution or creationism or aliens or the flying spagetti monster but only evolution comes with any evidence you can check for yourself, evidence you don't have to accept from someone else.


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 22, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > Christians need to wake up to this. Evolution is a religion; it is not a science!
> ...


YES!!! MICRO BUT NEVER MACRO!!! NO DOG WILL BECOME A CAT NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME. no pond scum will become a human,not even one human cell, not even a strand of human DNA. DNA=A DESIGNED PLAN=INFORMATION=HUGE AMOUNTS OF INFORMATION  AND EVERY BIT MUT BE RIGHT THE FIRST TIME TO HAVE A LIVING CELL.=PLAN,DESIGN,COMPLEXITY DO NOT EVOLVE FROM POND SCUM.   OH!! even pond scum is a design,plan,huge complexity!!!  TRY TO THINK!


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 22, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> PLAN,DESIGN,COMPLEXITY DO NOT EVOLVE FROM POND SCUM.


 
Dissolve sugar in water, suspend a string in it, and then let the water evaporate.  If you look closely at the result you'll find trillions of individual sugar molecules have *arranged themselves* according to a *plan*.  No intelligent designer required.


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 22, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > PLAN,DESIGN,COMPLEXITY DO NOT EVOLVE FROM POND SCUM.
> ...



OH!!!!!!!!! YOU SEE NO PLAN NO DESIGN??? OPEN YOUR EYES!!! TRY TO THINK!! wow!


----------



## pinqy (Jul 22, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> NO DOG WILL BECOME A CAT NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME. no pond scum will become a human,not even one human cell, not even a strand of human DNA.


Actually, either of those happening would DISPROVE evolution.


----------



## PredFan (Jul 22, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



I see the problem. You have no knowledge of evolution. The Theory of Evolution doesn't say that a dog will become a cat, nor does it say that pond scum will become a human. You should learn more about evolution before you try to criticise it. TRY TO THINK!


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 22, 2014)

DESIGN,PLAN,COMPLEXITY! it's unlikely that any two complex snow crystals, out of all those made over the entire history of the planet, have ever looked completely alike. AWESOME GOD!!! He says not even a little bird fall to earth wihout GOD knowing and GOD has the very number of hairs on a believer's head numbered! little man best learn your place in GOD'S creation!!!


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 22, 2014)

PredFan said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



lol!! and little man's  "science" says life on earth started how and where?????


----------



## rdean (Jul 22, 2014)

These anti evolution people.  Hilarious.  Reminds me of the guy who said we should land on the sun.  If we do it at night, it won't be too hot.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 22, 2014)

The Theory of Evolution makes absolutely no sense. Random molecules bumping into each other created life = LOL

Once you understand how complex a single strand of DNA really is, you have to let go of the current theory of Evolution


----------



## PredFan (Jul 22, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



Science isn't sure. They have a theory as to how, a range of eons as to when, but no real way to tell where.

Why don't you try to prove that life started in the garden of Eden and that man and animals were created just as they are today. Let's see some proof of that.


----------



## PredFan (Jul 22, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Theory of Evolution makes absolutely no sense. Random molecules bumping into each other created life = LOL
> 
> Once you understand how complex a single strand of DNA really is, you have to let go of the current theory of Evolution



You shouldn't say"it makes no sense" simply because it makes no sense to YOU. It's easy to poke holes in the theory of evolution, but much much harder to prove creation. You cannot prove creation by disproving evolution.


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 22, 2014)

PredFan said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



I HAVE ALL THE PROOF I NEED!!! GOD SAYS SO!!!! ONLY BLINDED FOOLS CANNOT SEE  trhat the universe and life cannot be accidents of time and chance!!and you???????????    later tennis time!


----------



## pinqy (Jul 22, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Theory of Evolution makes absolutely no sense. Random molecules bumping into each other created life = LOL



Strawman: 2. 	a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted [syn: straw man] 
Strawman | Define Strawman at Dictionary.com

No one claims random molecules bumping into each other created life.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Jul 22, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Theory of Evolution makes absolutely no sense. Random molecules bumping into each other created life = LOL
> 
> Once you understand how complex a single strand of DNA really is, you have to let go of the current theory of Evolution



Over the course of 500 million years with favorable conditions...?  Not that far-fetched.


----------



## PredFan (Jul 22, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



And there you have it folks. No proof what so ever. The very proof that creationists demand from evolution, they refuse to provide for creation.

The Bible say so and the proof is the Bible.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 22, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> DESIGN,PLAN,COMPLEXITY! it's unlikely that any two complex snow crystals, out of all those made over the entire history of the planet, have ever looked completely alike. AWESOME GOD!!! He says not even a little bird fall to earth wihout GOD knowing and GOD has the very number of hairs on a believer's head numbered! little man best learn your place in GOD'S creation!!!


 
Does God individually create each and every snowflake or did he create the rules that snowflakes follow when they form?  If you think the former you don't think very much of God.  If you think the latter, isn't that how evolution works?


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 22, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Theory of Evolution makes absolutely no sense. Random molecules bumping into each other created life = LOL
> 
> Once you understand how complex a single strand of DNA really is, you have to let go of the current theory of Evolution


 
If you understood the theory you'd realize how ignorant this sounds.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 22, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> I HAVE ALL THE PROOF I NEED!!! GOD SAYS SO!!!! ONLY BLINDED FOOLS CANNOT SEE trhat the universe and life cannot be accidents of time and chance!!and you??????????? later tennis time!


 
You have no proof at all.

- You can't prove there is a God.
- If there is a God you can't prove what it is he said.
- You can't prove that the universe and life cannot be accidents of time and chance.

I like tennis so I'll give you that one.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 22, 2014)

Coloradomtnman said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Theory of Evolution makes absolutely no sense. Random molecules bumping into each other created life = LOL
> ...



Totally far fetched -- beyond all odds. You could not assemble a portion of a DNA strand by chance over that time


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 22, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Theory of Evolution makes absolutely no sense. Random molecules bumping into each other created life = LOL
> ...



Uh huh.

Tell me the recipe for Primordial Soup


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 22, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 
Better already.

The answer is...  No one knows.  Likely there were thousands of unique soups across the earth through time.  Only took one.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 22, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > there are many different beliefs about what the science of evolution teaches.....
> ...



I have....the only evidence available is for what I identified above as having been demonstrated by science......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 22, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > PLAN,DESIGN,COMPLEXITY DO NOT EVOLVE FROM POND SCUM.
> ...



/gasps in astonishment......dude, which of those sugar molecules is alive?......


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 22, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



post hoc ergo propter hoc


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 22, 2014)

PredFan said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



well actually, there are many who believe pond scum eventually evolved into human beings......in fact, that's the very type of belief in evolution we reject.....you can't just pretend it doesn't exist.....its what the majority of seculars believe evolution to be......


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 22, 2014)

It's odd how we "Evolved" from amino acids  yet we can't synthesize our own lysine. Ruthlessly inefficient evolution, no?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 22, 2014)

PredFan said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Theory of Evolution makes absolutely no sense. Random molecules bumping into each other created life = LOL
> ...



/shrugs...and you can't prove man evolved from a single celled creature in a pond of scum by denying creation.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 22, 2014)

pinqy said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Theory of Evolution makes absolutely no sense. Random molecules bumping into each other created life = LOL
> ...



actually they do....its called abiogenesis......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 22, 2014)

Coloradomtnman said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Theory of Evolution makes absolutely no sense. Random molecules bumping into each other created life = LOL
> ...



and why is it that it hasn't happened again in say the last 479 million years?.....different conditions, different life....obviously the conditions for life are better now than they ever have been......


----------



## pinqy (Jul 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Nope. That's a straw man version.


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 22, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...


 You do realize that macro evolution is made up of micro evolutions?  So conceding that you believe in the latter means that you are implicitly conceding the former.


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 22, 2014)

zmrzlina said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



you may breed dogs for color,size and see change over the years in color ,size and such (micro)but you will never see the dog change into a cat.)macro) no matter how much time.


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 22, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> > gismys said:
> ...



No shit, you don't understand evolutionary biology.


----------



## PredFan (Jul 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



 It wasn't pond scum. Pond scum is a result of life in a stagnant pool of water, life's by products of various metabolic activities plus multi-cellular plant and animal life. None of that existed back then. Anyone who claims that humans came from pond scum doesn't know jack shit about evolution or biology for that matter. It didn't happen, it's never going to happen.


----------



## PredFan (Jul 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I'm not.

1. Man did not evolve from pond scum.
2. I'm using scientific facts to support evolution.
3. Creationists cannot prove creation so they attack evolution.


----------



## PredFan (Jul 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



No, it isn't.


----------



## PredFan (Jul 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Wtf are you talking about? Evolution has been going on continuously.


----------



## PredFan (Jul 22, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> > gismys said:
> ...



Oh my God how dense are you? No one says that a dog will turn into a cat. Not now not ever.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 22, 2014)

You know, there is a simple test.
Genesis 30:37-41
37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.

38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.

39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.

41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.

But according to Evolution and Genetics, the rods would have no effect on the offspring. 

So all we have to do is copy Jacob and see which prediction is correct: Will trees stripped of bark cause similar patterns as the Bible states, or will there be no effect as science states?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 22, 2014)

PredFan said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Theory of Evolution makes absolutely no sense. Random molecules bumping into each other created life = LOL
> ...


It makes no sense because the odds of molecules randomly forming amino acids and proteins are almost infinity - 1.  

The math means evolution is impossible


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 22, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



You should provide a source when you make a claim like that.


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 22, 2014)

PredFan said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > zmrzlina said:
> ...



BUT does pond scum become a human with time and chance??? lol!!! IF not by GOD,how  and why did life start???    answer =little sin loving,GOD rejecting man has no answer just a silly unproven theory. Hoping that GOD is not real so they won't face their final judgment day!! DREAM ON!!!


----------



## rdean (Jul 22, 2014)

PredFan said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Theory of Evolution makes absolutely no sense. Random molecules bumping into each other created life = LOL
> ...



Sure you can.  It's magic.  Magic doesn't need "proof". It only needs little sparkly lights.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 22, 2014)

pinqy said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



???....you have another version?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 22, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



no......not a requirement......I can believe 37k types of beetles evolved without believing the first beetle was a worm......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 22, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > zmrzlina said:
> ...



/shrugs.....actually if you limit it to what science says about evolutionary biology he may know than you do........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 22, 2014)

PredFan said:


> It didn't happen, it's never going to happen.



I think we can agree with that.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 22, 2014)

PredFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Coloradomtnman said:
> ...



perhaps if you read the posts you would enjoy the debate more......we aren't talking about evolution here, we are talking about the origin of life.......do you believe that is going on continuously and if you do, provide an example.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 22, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



is the fact that its never ever happened in any observable experiment count?.....


----------



## pinqy (Jul 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



There are many different theories. En.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis 
None of them involve the spontaneous creation of life.


----------



## guno (Jul 22, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!
> 
> I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.
> 
> ...



Now science is a religion? LOL the day is coming soon where all you bible thumpers  will be held in mental institutions and made so you cannot further breed and spawn , then America an rightly focus on science and education and raise its IQ Level.


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...


And another poster reveals their ignorance of evolutionary biology.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 23, 2014)

PredFan said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Theory of Evolution makes absolutely no sense. Random molecules bumping into each other created life = LOL
> ...



Actually, quite the opposite. Creation, intelligence, and adaptation are all observable. Macro evolution has never been proven and never been observed.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 23, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> Evolution is a scientifically established fact.  No scientist is questioning that it is real.  The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening.  You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.



Actually, there are many "scientists" that question the validity of evolution. They are just dismissed by those who believe in evolution because they do not believe the same way. 

I agree about the gravity part. Many people deny God as real because they say they cannot see him. That doesn't mean the he isn't real nor does it mean that his spiritual laws do not function as he says the do. Heaven and hell are real whether or not you believe in them. Therefore, might I persuade you to choose everlasting life by accepting Jesus.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



No one else believes that either.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 23, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Spontaneous creation of fully formed animals and plants has been observed?  Non-physical supernatural intelligence has been observed?
I'd love to see links to those.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 23, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



An interesting take, except it begins with an unsupported assumption and ignores reality entirely.  But let us take your reasoning:

There are 118 known elements.  That is infinity (the potential number of elements) - 118, which is pretty much the same thing as infinity - 1.  So the math means that elements are impossible.  All we have to do is ignore the fact they exist.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 23, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a scientifically established fact.  No scientist is questioning that it is real.  The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening.  You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.
> ...



I am glad you put "scientists" in quotes there.  

You can certainly try to persuade me.  Can I persuade you that Jesus was Bodhisattva, and thus you should concentrate upon understanding his teaching rather than merely accepting him in exchange for what is only illusion?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 23, 2014)

pinqy said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



????.....if you use the commonly understood meanings of the words "spontaneous" and "life" there is no other way to describe it.......you are arguing that life just happened under circumstances which cannot be explained in scientific terms......they ALL involve the spontaneous creation of life.....


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 23, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It makes no sense because the odds of molecules randomly forming amino acids and proteins are almost infinity - 1.
> 
> The math means evolution is impossible


 
Except it has already been done:

The *MillerUrey experiment*[1] (or *UreyMiller experiment*)[2] was an experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler organic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis, it was conducted in 1953[3] by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.[4][5][6]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the MillerUrey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original MillerUrey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 23, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Zmrzlina said:
> ...



sorry....I don't shoot back at drive-bys.......as now, the odds of them actually hitting something are too low......if you would like to stop and give an explanation of why you believe I am ignorant of evolutionary biology I would gladly spend the time to expose you as a fool, however......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 23, 2014)

pinqy said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Zmrzlina said:
> ...



/sigh......why do you folks always deflect instead of debate?.......worm, sludge, single celled organism.....wtf difference does it make.....you believe something which violates the scientific method...deal with it......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 23, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > It makes no sense because the odds of molecules randomly forming amino acids and proteins are almost infinity - 1.
> ...



bad news, kid....the Miller-Urey experiment failed.....nothing crawled out of the sludge.....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > It makes no sense because the odds of molecules randomly forming amino acids and proteins are almost infinity - 1.
> ...



Do you not know how many amino acids make up a single protein?

You think its by chance that amino acids arrange themselves into a perfectly functioning protein? 

And how many proteins make up a single cell

The odds are calculable but so large as to might as well be infinite


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



try this instead:

average number of amino acids that much be perfectly arranged to make a single protein

average number of proteins that must be arranged perfectly to make a functioning cell

like I said, it's a number, but it a number with far more zeros than there are subatomic particles in the known universe


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 
You're too impatient old man.  I wonder what would have crawled out if he ran the experiment for another few billion years?


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 23, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 
The question is what is the smallest organic molecule or combination of molecules that can be considered to be life?  While cells are certainly alive I believe even a single molecule can be just as alive.  My definition of life only requires that a molecule can replicate itself, not an impossible or unknown capability.  Once that molecule can replicate it becomes subject to the laws of evolution and viola, us.  After trillions of generations of course.


----------



## Agit8r (Jul 23, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!
> 
> I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.
> 
> ...



Did you know that the word "evolution" existed before Darwin's theory?  It's because evolution is a matter of fact.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 A long process over millions of years with many many intermediate steps is hardly "spontaneous" in any use of the word. Nor is it "bumping," nor is it random.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Actually, it makes a big difference. And if you don't understand the difference, or do understand the difference and purpsefully use an inaccurate example, then there's no debating.  

I note that you have not addressed my earlier post on Genesis 30, which offers a direct, testable, experiment between the claims of Evolution and the Bible.  Care to give it a shot?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2014)

Take random car parts from a junkyard and put them in a room, shake the room once a second, how many seconds will it take to have a perfectly functioning car?

The average car contain about 2,000 separate parts, which include the engine


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 23, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Take random car parts from a junkyard and put them in a room, shake the room once a second, how many seconds will it take to have a perfectly functioning car?
> 
> The average car contain about 2,000 separate parts, which include the engine


 
A car is a poor example since neither evolution nor God created one.

A better example would be the proverbial monkeys on a typewriter composing Hamlet.  Assuming the monkeys randomly generated letters of the alphabet how long would it take to write Hamlet?  Never going to happen but that's not evolution.  Evolution requires a selection pressure.  If someone compared what the monkeys typed with Shakespere and removed anything the monkeys typed that wasn't in the original how long would it take for the monkeys to write Hamlet.  Not long at all.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Take random car parts from a junkyard and put them in a room, shake the room once a second, how many seconds will it take to have a perfectly functioning car?
> ...


The odds of perfectly assembling 2,000 parts with the engine counting as a part are 3.3*10E5735.

That's a number with 5,735 zero's after it

And not counting the parts which like proteins are separately assembled


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 23, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



The exact same thing could be said about an atom of gold.  Does that mean gold does not exist?

Amino acids exist.  Proteins exist.  Life exists.  Evolution happens.  We can dispute causation since none of us know how it all got started, but to say it must have happened this way rather than that because of probability makes no sense at all.  You have nothing upon which to base your assumptions than more assumptions.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Take random car parts from a junkyard and put them in a room, shake the room once a second, how many seconds will it take to have a perfectly functioning car?
> ...


What's doing the selection in assembling the first cell??????????


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 23, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



We don't know.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


Post hoc ergo...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


You meant to say "I don't know"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


You see from the above that trillions is only 15 zeroes out of 5735


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



How postmodern of you.


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 23, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



*The theory is called Intelligent Design and it is perfectly in line with Creationism and evolutionary theory* if you simply grasp the *TIME* element .  The Biblical Creation Story is correct but written for a scientifically illiterate and primitive people - somewhat like trying to explain complex theories both political and scientific to Liberals - primitive thinkers.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 23, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yes.  That is what I was saying.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 23, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Nope.  I meant "we".  Unless you have some hard evidence you haven't presented yet.


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 23, 2014)

Paul said that the wrath of God comes against those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. How can he justify his statement that there are those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness? He says that God has made Himself evident to them. How can Paul say that God has made Himself evident to them? He says because that which is known about God is made obvious to them through the things that He has made. Paul uses the argument from design. He says that since we see obviously created objects we must know that there is a Designer/Maker. Paul argues that evolutionists are without excuse, reason, or defense. Paul says that they blindly hold fast to their beliefs in spite of the evidence to the contrary. In counter argument Paul points out that Christians have an evidence based faith. Christians have an excuse, reason and defense. Paul presses his argument further to point out that those who are evolutionists become futile in their speculations, in their fable telling. Their hearts, their spirits, become darkened. They claim wisdom and knowledge that they do not have. They invent stories which they cannot support. They build a house of cards trying to defend their position. Their stories are plausible and logical, but all things that are plausible and all things that are logical are not necessarily true. Paul writes that those who accept evolutionism are fools. Today the word "fools" is not necessarily a strong word. Even the most intelligent person might make a foolish mistake now and then. If you drive up to a street corner and turn right when you should have turned left, it might be said that you did something foolish. But, that is not the word Paul used 2,000 years ago. In Greek, Paul wrote that those who accept evolutionism are "morons." A more modern translation would be that they become idiots. Those are harsh words, indeed. How can Paul justify such harsh rhetoric? He says it because those who knowingly reject the truth of Gods existence have exchanged the worship of the One true Creator for the worship of those things which He has created. They worship trees and animals instead of God. They have exchanged the truth of God for a lie. If you exchange a lie for the truth, that is a good idea. If you exchange the truth for a lie, that is a bad idea. Paul declares in no uncertain terms that those who accept evolution have exchanged the truth for a lie. They have made an obviously poor decision - See more at: Creation Worldview Ministries: Is the earth 4,600,000,000 years old? Or, is the earth only 2,191,000 days (6,000 years) old?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


I always knew that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally and thanks to Kabbalah now it all makes sense


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 23, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> Paul said that the wrath of God comes against those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. How can he justify his statement that there are those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness? He says that God has made Himself evident to them. How can Paul say that God has made Himself evident to them? He says because that which is known about God is made obvious to them through the things that He has made. Paul uses the argument from design. He says that since we see obviously created objects we must know that there is a Designer/Maker. Paul argues that evolutionists are without excuse, reason, or defense. Paul says that they blindly hold fast to their beliefs in spite of the evidence to the contrary. In counter argument Paul points out that Christians have an evidence based faith. Christians have an excuse, reason and defense. Paul presses his argument further to point out that those who are evolutionists become futile in their speculations, in their fable telling. Their hearts, their spirits, become darkened. They claim wisdom and knowledge that they do not have. They invent stories which they cannot support. They build a house of cards trying to defend their position. Their stories are plausible and logical, but all things that are plausible and all things that are logical are not necessarily true. Paul writes that those who accept evolutionism are fools. Today the word "fools" is not necessarily a strong word. Even the most intelligent person might make a foolish mistake now and then. If you drive up to a street corner and turn right when you should have turned left, it might be said that you did something foolish. But, that is not the word Paul used 2,000 years ago. In Greek, Paul wrote that those who accept evolutionism are "morons." A more modern translation would be that they become idiots. Those are harsh words, indeed. How can Paul justify such harsh rhetoric? He says it because those who knowingly reject the truth of Gods existence have exchanged the worship of the One true Creator for the worship of those things which He has created. They worship trees and animals instead of God. They have exchanged the truth of God for a lie. If you exchange a lie for the truth, that is a good idea. If you exchange the truth for a lie, that is a bad idea. Paul declares in no uncertain terms that those who accept evolution have exchanged the truth for a lie. They have made an obviously poor decision - See more at: Creation Worldview Ministries: Is the earth 4,600,000,000 years old? Or, is the earth only 2,191,000 days (6,000 years) old?



You are taking this from a book.  God does not write in books.  That is what humans do.


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 23, 2014)

GOD'S WORD IS INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) BY GOD,IT IS LIVING,ETERNAL TRUTH LITERALLY!!!!!!! PTL.==John 1 

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.

4 In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.

5 And the Light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 23, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



Although I've studied Christian History/Origins   - I'm not all too familiar with Kabbalah .
Does it relate to Time, Intelligent Design, Creationism/ Evolution ....  ?


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 23, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 
The "first cell" is really an assembly of pre-existing modules.  Each module evolved on its own and then survived better in conjunction with other modules.  Likely each module was an assemply of pre-existing submodules that evolved on its own.  Etc.


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 23, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> GOD'S WORD IS INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) BY GOD,IT IS LIVING,ETERNAL TRUTH LITERALLY!!!!!!! PTL.==John 1
> 
> 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
> 
> ...





> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.



How can you possibly draw a literal interpretation out of that ?  Seriously [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION] - I've got alot of respect for you and your self appointed crusade to educate the "Heathen" - but you need to think outside the box somewhat - How in Gods name do you draw any kind of literal interpretion from that statement ?


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 23, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > GOD'S WORD IS INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) BY GOD,IT IS LIVING,ETERNAL TRUTH LITERALLY!!!!!!! PTL.==John 1
> ...



YOU NEED TO PRSAY FOR GOD TO GIVE YOU SOME WISDOM AND UNDERSTANDING AND NOT ALLOW satan to blind you,use you as his tool,fool,puppet!!!


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 23, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 
The difference is random chance vs selective pressure


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...


The Bible is allegory. Their understanding of creation and reality is actually close to current string theory. Newton studied kabbalah


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Like the car, the first cell is an assembly of proteins which themselves are assemblies. The odds of it forming by chance are beyond human comprehension.

The DNA itself is evidence of creation and a creator


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 23, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



GISMYS !! OV VAY !!   Is that suppossed to be Per Say  or Pray ?    Gissy - I'ma gonna say a prayer for you *Okay ? *


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 23, 2014)

EARLY MAN DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE,THEY just recorded the word GOD inspired (breathed) to them to write.== All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

17 that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for all good works.
2 Timothy 3:16-17== But I certify to you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached by me is not according to man;
12 for I neither received it from man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galations 1:11-12==21 For the prophecy came not in olden times by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 peter 1:21


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 23, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



so basically, even though it has never been demonstrated in a scientific experiment, and may not be for another billion years, you're content saying its been proven by science?........sounds a lot like faith, to me......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 23, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> My definition of life only requires that a molecule can replicate itself



well then you have proven yourself wrong....a molecule cannot replicate itself......sorry.....


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 23, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> EARLY MAN DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE,THEY just recorded the word GOD inspired (breathed) to them to write.== All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
> 
> 17 that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for all good works.
> 2 Timothy 3:16-17== But I certify to you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached by me is not according to man;
> ...



Yes, they did.  All scripture is the word of man.  It doesn't matter what the religion, it is all us.  Perhaps some was inspired, perhaps not.  This we do not know.  But what we do know is that human beings wrote every last word.

If you wish to see the writing of God, then look at a night sky in the desert, look at a leaf, look anywhere you like but not in a book.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 23, 2014)

pinqy said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



only one step is required.....that one step from "that which is not alive" to "that which is alive".......you can have trillions of things which are not alive bouncing around next to each other without cause or without direction......that is spontaneity.....you can use all the scientific terms you want, it all boils down to "shit just happened".......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 23, 2014)

pinqy said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



didn't see it....which page is it on....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 23, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Zmrzlina said:
> ...



???....not to mention accurate.....I'm sorry if this debate is over your head.....


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 23, 2014)

It is not wise for people to try to suppress the truth, nor is it wise to deceive oneself or others. It is not wise to try and complicate the facts in order to distort the truth and support the unrealistic worldview of evolutionism. An intellectually honest person cannot reject truth simply because they do not like the truth. If a scientist or layman looks at the evidence with an open mind, able to learn and assess the known facts and evidences, he must accept that a recent creation by the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-judicious Creator God of the Bible is the only adequate cause for the existence of everything in the universe. This is completely justified by the most universally accepted principle in science, the Principle of Cause and Effect. In I Thessalonians 5:21-22, Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil." If evolutionism does not line up with what the Bible says, then it is evil. It is evil because it is in opposition to Gods declared purposes. There is only one standard for right and wrong and that is Gods opinion. If your opinion does not line up with Gods opinion then your opinion is wrong. Every thought you think is either going to be done in obedience to God or in disobedience to God. Paul commended the Bereans in Acts 17 "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Everyone is to test everything against the truths of the Bible and accept or reject things accordingly. In the debate about origins we may make the following statements. All the known Laws of Science, all the known natural processes and all the known physical evidence may be predicted or explained by the Theory of Special Creation. Not one Law of Science, not one natural process nor the physical evidence (without making up pretty little stories about them) may be predicted nor explained by the various theories of evolution. - See more at: Creation Worldview Ministries: Is the earth 4,600,000,000 years old? Or, is the earth only 2,191,000 days (6,000 years) old?


----------



## UllysesS.Archer (Jul 23, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> Evolution is a scientifically established fact.  No scientist is questioning that it is real.  The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening.  You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.



You have not done your homework! There are thousands of scientists who reject evolution. Not tens, not hundreds, but thousands.  Try again.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer (Jul 23, 2014)

PredFan said:


> Creationists attack evolution because they cannot support creation. Are there holes in the theory of evolution? Sure there are. But here's the important facts:
> 
> There is real factual data that supports evolution.
> There is no factual data of any kind that supports creation.



We have something that evolutionists will not have for thousands of years. We have thousands of years of written Word, passed down to each generation. 

Now go find that missing link...


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 23, 2014)

pinqy said:


> You know, there is a simple test.
> Genesis 30:37-41
> 37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
> 
> ...



is this what you were referring to?......this has nothing to do with either creation or evolution.....

it has to do with animal husbandry......having strange striped sticks in the watering trough likely was less threatening to striped animals than to the brown ones, so they were less nervous and more inclined to breed.....


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 23, 2014)

UllysesS.Archer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a scientifically established fact.  No scientist is questioning that it is real.  The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening.  You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.
> ...



No.  There aren't. Unless you wish to extend the definition of "scientist" to anyone with an opinion.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > My definition of life only requires that a molecule can replicate itself
> ...


 
You're right, I misspoke.  I was referring to molecular self-assembly which happens all the time.  When a molecule achieved the ability to self-assemble, or attach to other, similar molecules, it would "replicate" once it was so big it broke apart.

_Molecular self-assembly underlies the construction of biologic __macromolecular assemblies__ in living organisms, and so is crucial to the function of __cells__. It is exhibited in the self-assembly of __lipids__ to form the __membrane__, the formation of double helical DNA through hydrogen bonding of the individual strands, and the assembly of proteins to form __quaternary structures__. _


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > You know, there is a simple test.
> ...



That would be an example of evolution.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 23, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Like the car, the first cell is an assembly of proteins which themselves are assemblies. The odds of it forming by chance are beyond human comprehension.
> 
> The DNA itself is evidence of creation and a creator


 
You're correct, theodds of it forming by chance are beyond human comprehension.  The odds of it forming by non-random selection is within (most) humans comprehension.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer (Jul 23, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Again, you stick your foot in your mouth, prepare to chew. Here are a few rather well known ones.

There is no question that some of the most famous scientists of all times believed in creation. Ann Lamont has written a book entitled 21 Great Scientists Who Believed The Bible. She devotes chapters to Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun. These men werent dummies, and they believed in creation.

My question to you is, do you believe a science teacher to be a scientist, and I don't mean homeschool teachers, but teachers in a school.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 23, 2014)

UllysesS.Archer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > UllysesS.Archer said:
> ...



A scientist is someone trained in a field of science and works within that field.  A science professor at a university would meet the qualification, a science teacher at a high school would not.  

Believing in the Bible is not the same thing as believing in creationism.  Let's just take one of your folks, but we can hit the others if you like.  This is a letter written on the subject by von Braun.  World's Greatest Creation Scientists from Y1K to Y2K


----------



## UllysesS.Archer (Jul 23, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



OK, get your facts straight, your argument was that there is not 1 scientist who disputes the *theory* of evolution, you state it is a fact of evolution.

I have just proven that there is more than one person who you would consider a "scientist." Can you admit to that?

You speaking for every scientist, is as assanine, as me speaking for every Christian.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Like the car, the first cell is an assembly of proteins which themselves are assemblies. The odds of it forming by chance are beyond human comprehension.
> ...



Right, as if the DNA was a complex machine designed by some superior intelligence

Glad you're starting to understand


----------



## pinqy (Jul 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > You know, there is a simple test.
> ...



Except there were no striped animals to start with...Laban removed them all and left Jacob only with the plain ones.  

And there's nothing in the passage about some of the animals breeding more than the others.  It's pretty straight forward that the animals that looked at the branches while copulating gave birth to striped and speckled etc offspring.

And in any case, where did you get the notion that the striped sticks would be threatening at all to the plain animals or make the striped ones friskier?  You'd have to test that hypothesis to see if was true.  And the only reason you even thought of that explanation is that you know that the presence of striped branches would have no effect on the coloring of the offspring, so you invented an answer that would avoid the Bible being wrong.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 23, 2014)

UllysesS.Archer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a scientifically established fact.  No scientist is questioning that it is real.  The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening.  You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.
> ...



It doesn't matter what they believe. They aren't producing the work to defend their positions. They aren't producing papers in journals like Science, Nature, PNAS, or any other peer-reviewed publications. They aren't presenting at conferences. They aren't coming up with the work that shows evolution is simply wrong.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 23, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 
Non-random selection does not require any intelligence any more than the assembling of a sodium and chlorine ions into a regular solid based on a repeated pattern, a crystal, requires intelligence.  That I understand, what I don't understand is why you don't understand.  

Or do you refuse to accept facts that don't match up with your faith?


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 23, 2014)

UllysesS.Archer said:


> OK, get your facts straight, your argument was that there is not 1 scientist who disputes the *theory* of evolution, you state it is a fact of evolution.





Every time someone says "it's just a theory!" a devil earns his horns.


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 23, 2014)

UllysesS.Archer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a scientifically established fact.  No scientist is questioning that it is real.  The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening.  You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.
> ...



And they are wrong.


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 23, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Macro evolution has never been proven and never been observed.



Tell that to someone infected with MRSA.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Do you not understand how many orders of magnitude more complicated a single cell is than a Sodium atom?


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 23, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 
I do.  Do you appreciate how much time has passed since the beginning of this planet?

Simple rules can give rise to bewildering complexity.  Fractals, based on simple mathmatical equations, are a great example.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Uh huh and the odds of randomly assembling a cell with 2,000 proteins are 3.3E 5,735-1

"Using simple arguments, we estimate a range of 24 million proteins per cubic micron (i.e. 1 fL) in bacteria, yeast, and mammalian cells."

What is the total number of protein molecules per cell volume? A call to rethink some published values

And remember, each protein is its own separate "machine"


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 23, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!
> 
> I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.
> 
> ...



Christianity is a false religion and not proven science either.  

You should be able to apply the same logic to your religion buddy.  Keep thinking.  Forget about the scare tactics they used when you were a baby and too immature to know right from wrong.  You're a grown man now.  Grow up.  And know we laugh at you when you threaten us with hell.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer (Jul 23, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Just as those who believe in the theory of evolution have not been able to prove any more than what they ever have, which is very little. They have theories, we have faith. 

When you do your homework on peer-reviewed publications, you find out that those who disagree with the majority are soon to become the heretics of science, they are much like Muslims, believe what we do, or pay the consequences.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer (Jul 23, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



I say yours are wrong. So do we thumb wrestle to determine whose opinion carries more weight on the matter...


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 23, 2014)

UllysesS.Archer said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> > UllysesS.Archer said:
> ...



Or we could evaluate the empirical evidence which overwhelming supports evolution.  I also find it hard to believe anyone in the field of biology that wholly rejects evolution.  Could you present a source on that?


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 23, 2014)

EVOLUTION IS BUNK "science"=THE RELIGION OF GOD HATING SIN LOVING FOOLS. WHO ELSE WOULD THINK THE MOST COMPLEX THING IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE=THE HUMAN BRAIN AND BODY COULD EVER BE JUST AN ACCIDENT OF TIME AND CHANCE??? TRY to think!!!


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 23, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Uh huh and the odds of *randomly *assembling a cell with 2,000 proteins are 3.3E 5,735-1



You may love this strawman but repeating it over and over does not make it so.  *Evolution is not a random process.*


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 23, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> EVOLUTION IS BUNK "science"=THE RELIGION OF GOD HATING SIN LOVING FOOLS. WHO ELSE WOULD THINK THE MOST COMPLEX THING IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE=THE HUMAN BRAIN AND BODY COULD EVER BE JUST AN ACCIDENT OF TIME AND CHANCE??? TRY to think!!!



If you look closely at the fractal picture I posted you'd see that it is INFINITELY complex.  It is thus vastly more complex than the human brain and body.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 23, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



so when a dog breeder comes up with the next Shitzu, you would consider that evolution?......


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 23, 2014)

UllysesS.Archer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > UllysesS.Archer said:
> ...



Giving me a list of scientists who believe in God is not the same thing as a list of scientists who dispute evolution.  I will happily concede most scientists believe in God in some fashion.  Show me one who actually does dispute evolution.  von Braun is clearly not one.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Of course.  If species did not change breeding dogs would be impossible.  It is nothing more than the manipulation of the natural process of evolution.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 23, 2014)

pinqy said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



yes there were......the passage quoted above says they sorted the lambs and he kept his cattle separate from Labans brown cattle.....what happens if you only breed your cattle to a spotted male and don't let them near the brown bull?........all of your cattle will be spotted.....some of his will be spotted.....the next year you take all yours and some of his......you do it again and again for five years......

now, is that evolution or creation?........


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 23, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Uh huh and the odds of *randomly *assembling a cell with 2,000 proteins are 3.3E 5,735-1
> ...


So its directed and controlled?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 23, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



lol no....in fact, it would be intelligent design.....evolution is just random shit happening randomly......


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



You think the source of the pressure causing the change makes any difference in the actual process?  

Evolution:  a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also :  the process described by this theory

Whether the change is the result of animals with longer necks are better able to eat and breed or if animals with longer ears are the only ones allowed to breed, the biological process is exactly the same.  Tendencies get passed on to the next generation and modifications occur over time.  If evolution was not a fact, there would be no such thing as a great dane.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 23, 2014)

> Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.



So says the insane theist.


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 23, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.
> 
> 
> 
> So says the insane theist.



OH!!! IN GOD WE TRUST!!!!  ONE NATION UNDER GOD WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!!! even you>


----------



## UllysesS.Archer (Jul 23, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> > Zmrzlina said:
> ...



yes Musings of a Pertinacious Papist: "Another evolutionary biologist rejects the bogus theory of Evolution"


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 23, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> *You must be a Liberal - Right ? *



That's one hypothesis.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 23, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yes, just like gravity.  Everything we see is subject to the forces of nature.  Drop something and it falls to the earth.  No other direction.  Measure its speed and (ignoring things like air resistance) it falls at the same speed as every other object.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Before that part:
34 And Laban said, Behold, I would it might be according to thy word.

35 And he removed that day the he goats that were ringstraked and spotted, and all the she goats that were speckled and spotted, and every one that had some white in it, and all the brown among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.

36 And he set three days' journey betwixt himself and Jacob: and Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks.

Jacob was left with only plain animals.




> what happens if you only breed your cattle to a spotted male and don't let them near the brown bull?........all of your cattle will be spotted.....some of his will be spotted.....the next year you take all yours and some of his......you do it again and again for five years......
> 
> now, is that evolution or creation?........


Evolution, of course.  And while part of Jacob's actions...the separation of the strong from the weak, is in line with observations, the use of the rods to make the offspring speckled and spotted is not.  And yet the verses clearly state that cause and effect.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 23, 2014)

PredFan said:


> Creationists attack evolution because they cannot support creation. Are there holes in the theory of evolution? Sure there are. But here's the important facts:
> 
> There is real factual data that supports evolution.
> There is no factual data of any kind that supports creation.



Everytime a new fossil is found that bridges a gap, there are then two gaps.


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 23, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Creationists find it inconceivable that randomness could have produced the vast  diversity and complexity of nature. Some evolutionary scientists agree : Evolution is not chance.

To imagine evolution as simply blind chance and randomness is a conceptual mistake .  The process of natural selection, a natural algorithm that creates order out of chaos and works in accordance with fixed and non-random variables. 

An explosion in a print shop will not produce an encyclopedia and a tornado in a junkyard will not produce a mazaratti .  A million monkeyspounding away at keyboards willnever produce a Novel [They  might however produce posts worthy of asome of the LiberalHacks on this Forum ]  DNA in a blender will never create a living being. All of these scenarios lack the component of *intelligent Design*


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 23, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


you mean the random source of pressure?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 23, 2014)

pinqy said:


> Evolution, of course.



nope....intelligent design....sorry....


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 24, 2014)

pinqy said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



I never said that they were fully formed and poofed into existence. Mankind was designed, skillfully crafted and formed from the dust of the earth by a loving creator patterned after his own image. The computer that you are typing on was designed and built. As it is said in the programming world, computer code doesn't evolve, it must be designed. Code requires intelligence. This has been observed. Intelligence coming from a rock has never been observed.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 24, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Great. So we should see monkeys turning into human beings every day. There should be a field of transitional life forms. Funny thing how not ONE has been found.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 24, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



But the dog is still a????

Oh yeah, that's right it is still a dog.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



No.  "Random" is irrelevant.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 24, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



So?


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 24, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 
Maybe you can tell us what a transitional form would look like so we'd know it when we saw it?  You can describe a fossil (e.g., say a feathered animal that is clearly not a bird) or a living creature (e.g., two species that can mate but won't have viable offspring).  Good luck.

This is a common complaint of those who don't understand how evolution works.  The answer is that EVERY living thing is a transitional life form.  I am a transitional form between my parents and my children.


----------



## jillian (Jul 24, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



in other words, you've never taken a basic science course and haven't a clue


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 24, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 
I don't know the origins of the laws of nature but they are all the _design_ required to give us the universe we see.  Anyone who professes to believe in God but refuses to aknowledge how he accomplishes his work puts himself above God and is not really a believer.

God may be hiding in the gaps of our knowledge but every year those gaps are shrinking.  Maybe he is trying to reveal himself but at least some are too arrogant to see.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 24, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



I could not agree more.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 24, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



Wait now...  does that make me a liberal or a conservative?  Hell, I can't keep track.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 24, 2014)

What about amino acids makes the self-replicating?

After the first lysine was formed, the next one had to be randomly created by pure chance all over again, and then that lysine molecule had to bump against some other amino acid...etc....

you see why the Primordial Soup theory make no sense at all, right?


----------



## UllysesS.Archer (Jul 24, 2014)

Remember the two trees in the Garden of Eden, one was the tree of life, the other the tree of knowledge. 

We chose knowledge, and knowledge is now increasing at rates unheard of just a decade ago. Anyone who doesn't take advantage of those increases, is just like someone who refuses to take their child to the doctor, thinking that God will heal that child. Of coarse He will, if you take them to the doctor.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 24, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Uh huh and the odds of *randomly *assembling a cell with 2,000 proteins are 3.3E 5,735-1
> ...



I know it's not, there's a design that drives it.

Again, thank you


----------



## Chuckt (Jul 24, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



You're describing micro evolution instead of macro evolution.

There are some white couples that give birth to black babies and the odds are something like 1 in 20,000.  When have you ever heard of any parents giving birth to monkeys?  You haven't.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 24, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Evolution is like gravity --  it's a "Force"?

Or is there an Evolution particle?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 24, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



random is reality.....reality is not irrelevant.....you want shit happening without happenings......


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 24, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> What about amino acids makes the self-replicating?
> 
> After the first lysine was formed, the next one had to be randomly created by pure chance all over again, and then that lysine molecule had to bump against some other amino acid...etc....
> 
> you see why the Primordial Soup theory make no sense at all, right?


 
I'm no chemist but I believe the physical shape of molecules is the key to their properties.  Many molecules can form chains even one as simple as water.  If the process that created one lysine created trillions then they could well randomly bond together.  I think lipids have been shown to do this.  Where lysine really fits in I have no idea but I don't see how not knowing something means it is not possible.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 24, 2014)

Chuckt said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


 
Miillions of "micro" evolutionary changes can result in "macro" evolution.

I answered your question, please answer mine about the transitional forms you mentioned.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 24, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 
Yes, just like gravity. Everything we see is subject to the LAWS of nature. 

Better?


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 24, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Ignorant uninformed pretenscious comments that demonstrate a lack of Knowledge of scientific data as a rule generally indicates you're a Liberal.  Naive , simple minded and opinionated.  *&#8220;At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child &#8212; miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.&#8221;*-- P.J O'Rourke

I was going to say that Liberals are the best example of a missing link between man and ape, but unfortunately that's not true. You're just immature and frequently on the low end of the bell curve in terms of intelligence.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



I'm sorry.  You think "want" matters?  "Random" is irrelevant to this issue.  Evolution is not about how pressure occurs, it is how that pressure affects living things.  Whether that pressure is random or directed, it is the same process.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 24, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Thanks for straightening that out.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jul 24, 2014)

Why does the Religious Right continue to drag their knuckles through the argument over evolution?  I have a theory: arrogance.

Arrogance concerning the human being as animal.  We humans are mammals.  We are subject to the same evolutionary forces as every other life form of our planet.  The Religious Right cannot accept the fact that they themselves are animals.  they cling to the myth of Genesis that tells them that humans were created separately from animals.

This myth not only assures the believers that humans are distinctly NOT animals, but appeared full formed as we are today.

My question is, if we accept science as a means to understand the natural world, and we have been successful at that understanding, why would we want to revert to the mythology of the Genesis tale?  To put it another way, who are you going to believe: 21 century scientific method or the musings of a Bronze Age philosopher?

Incidentally, evolution does not, nor does it seek to refute God.  It does, however, refute the mythology of Genesis.  All cultures have developed some form of mythology about the origins of mankind.  Why would Genesis be the only credible myth?  

The Bible is a book of beautiful poetry, soul soothing spirituality, history, war, sex violence, parable and divinity.  What the Bible is not is a science textbook.


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 24, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Anytime Little Fella


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 24, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Ignorant uninformed pretenscious comments that demonstrate a lack of Knowledge of scientific data as a rule generally indicates you're a Liberal. Naive , simple minded and opinionated. *At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child  miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.*-- P.J O'Rourke
> 
> I was going to say that Liberals are the best example of a missing link between man and ape, but unfortunately that's not true. You're just immature and frequently on the low end of the bell curve in terms of intelligence.


 
Bringing politics into a discussion of science would make you a conservative.  
Making assertions like they are accepted facts would make you a conservative. 
Quoting conservatives like they have some moral authority would make you a conservative. 
Insulting those that disagree with you would make you a conservative. 

No liberal would ever do any of these things


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 24, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Ignorant uninformed pretenscious comments that demonstrate a lack of Knowledge of scientific data as a rule generally indicates you're a Liberal. Naive , simple minded and opinionated. *At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child  miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.*-- P.J O'Rourke
> ...



Ummmm.....  does that mean I'm a conservative now?  Damn, I'm so confused.  Maybe my understanding of evolution makes me a moderate social democrat with a slight conservative crossover and occasional labour party interactions?


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 24, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Ignorant uninformed pretenscious comments that demonstrate a lack of Knowledge of scientific data as a rule generally indicates you're a Liberal. Naive , simple minded and opinionated. *At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child  miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.*-- P.J O'Rourke
> ...



Alang - although this is a public forum,  you are unaware of the History behind this squabble so kindly bud out - Thank You Kindly


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 24, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



Confused ?  - who you - why in heavens name would anyone think such a thing ?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 24, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



We're having a squabble?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 24, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Closer.

There's a law giver that's beyond human comprehension -- and I'm OK with that.

The Kabbalaists and physicists insist there are 10 dimensions of which we perceive 4 -- and I'm OK with that.

Mexican Shaman say that the Universe is made of the Known, the Unknown (we can perceive it -- but haven't yet) and the Unknowable where the vast majority of the Universe lies simply beyond human capability and comprehension -- again, I'm OK with that


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 24, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> but I don't see how not knowing something means it is not possible.



atheists would say you're wrong.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 24, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



there are no transitional forms absent the imagination of the evolutionist.....in reality, you only have creatures.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 24, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



and you are raising this to convince me I am wrong about the process being random?....if the process must be either random or directed and you say it is not directed, why argue when I say you believe it's random?......


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



I never said it wasn't directed.  How would I know that?


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > but I don't see how not knowing something means it is not possible.
> ...


 
That's why I'm agnostic.  As for the God of the Bible, I don't know if he exists but I'm 99.9% sure no one else does either.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Chuckt said:
> ...


 
Then God is a trickster because creatures like archeopteryx certainly look that way.  Actually he is a lover of deceits and tricks.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 24, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...




???....sorry, I guess I assumed it because I was arguing with people who said it wasn't and you jumped into the argument on their side.......why are you here, then?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 24, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



there are no tricks.....unless your imagination is playing tricks on you.......


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 24, 2014)

EVOLUTION is loved by little sin loving GOD rejecting man, it is their hope that maybe GOD is not real and they can live in their pet sins and maybe avoid final judgment day!!! DREAM ON SILLY FOOLS,DREAM ON TILL YOU FEEL THE FLAMES OF HELL, FAR,FAR TOO LATE THEN.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
It must be my eyes are playing tricks.  I look around and find abundant evidence that the universe is VERY, VERY old.  I see evidence that all life evolved from a common ancestor.   These are obvious contradictions of Genesis.  If that is allegory what part, if any, of the Bible is literally true?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



The same reason you are here.  In fact, I did not jump into an argument on anyone's side.  I can't help what you assume.


----------



## Chuckt (Jul 24, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



And if God created the universe in process, what does that do to your theory?


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 24, 2014)

Chuckt said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Interesting theory but what would it mean?

 God created a really vast universe and then put galaxies in every distant corner, there are billions of galaxies and each has billions of stars.  Then God created beams of light from every star in every direction and stretched each of them out for billions of years so they would reach to earth.  And did the same for every star in every galaxy.  The galaxies close to us he turned the light a little bit red while for those far away he made their light much redder.  He also made it look as if the galaxies were orbiting each other, a process that could take a billion years.

 Sure God could do that but what would be the point?  Most of those galaxies were too faint to be seen until 100 or so years ago.

 Why create fossils of creatures that never lived and then bury them for us to find?  Why go to all that trouble just to make it look like the universe is old only to tell us in Genesis that it is not?


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 24, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



There are few contradictions in Genesis , just misunderstandings and poor interpretations. Genesis was written for a society much more primitive than we are now.  It's basically like trying to explain advanced calculus to a chimpanzee or logic to a liberal.  You have to speak down to them - reach them on their level ..   God created the Heavens and Earth in Six Days and rested n the Seventh - how long were those days if there was no sunrise and sunset - they weren't 24 hours - they were a indefinite time period.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 24, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



so you were nervous about discussing transitional fossils and felt the need to divert?.......I understand......oh look....butterflies have wings.....bats have wings......robins have wings......one of them must be a transitional creature!........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 24, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> Why create fossils of creatures that never lived and then bury them for us to find?



????....nobody said they didn't live......just said they were transitional......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 24, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> If that is allegory what part, if any, of the Bible is literally true?



Well you could start with Genesis 1:1......


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 25, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Your children are still human beings. Facial features, height, weight, color of hair, color of eyes, etc. may change but they are still fully human (I would hope). 

But let's take a look at your analogy for a second. You believe that humans are changing and are transitional life forms so which ones are more evolved: Jews, Blacks, Whites or Hispanics?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 25, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> It must be my eyes are playing tricks.  I look around and find abundant evidence that the universe is VERY, VERY old.  I see evidence that all life evolved from a common ancestor.   These are obvious contradictions of Genesis. * If that is allegory what part, if any, of the Bible is literally true?*



BINGO. The reason you hope that evolutionism is true is so you can prove that nothing in the Bible is true. Thus we can see that GISMYS has hit the nail on the head.



GISMYS said:


> EVOLUTION is loved by little sin loving GOD  rejecting man, *it is their hope that maybe GOD is not real and they can  live in their pet sins and maybe avoid final judgment day*!!! DREAM ON  SILLY FOOLS,DREAM ON TILL YOU FEEL THE FLAMES OF HELL, FAR,FAR TOO LATE  THEN.



It really isn't any surprise because the Bible tells us that this is the case:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 
(Romans 1:19-25)

You couldn't write a more accurate script for what is taking place in the evolution movement today if you tried.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jul 25, 2014)

For the life of me, I will never understand why some Believers have such a hard time with the abandoning of Creationism in favor of Evolution.

Did not the Good Lord give us the ability to reason and to employ logic as part of our growth?

Why would He not wish us to discern for ourselves which parts of our Ancient Sacred Texts are believable and which are not?

Why would He not wish His children to question everything, in pursuit of a more perfect Knowledge, which brings us closer to Him?

Why must there be a conflict between Creationism and Evolution?

If The Deity created the Universe, then He surely created the Laws of Physics by which the Universe operates, as well as creating Time itself, and He surely set all into motion, to bring us to this state, including the process of biological evolution.

With an Eternal Spirit, what difference does a few billion years make? To such a Being, 10 or 15 billion years ago is the day before yesterday, metaphorically speaking.

What difference if that Eternal Spirit created the world in 7 days, or 4 billion years?

Time would be meaningless to such an omnipotent creative force.

So, the nomads and early civilized folk who wrote down such things got the Creation Story and that 7 Days business all wrong... so what?

What matter, if The Deity itself is held to exist, and is held in reverence, regardless of the timetable that It kept during the course of Creation.

From a certain angle, and metaphorically and philosophically speaking, there is no conflict between Creationism and Evolution... just differences of opinion on timetables and sequencing.

Or so it seems to this amateur contemplator of such things.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 25, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> Miillions of "micro" evolutionary changes can result in "macro" evolution.



...but this has never been observed, thus leaving macro-evolution as a religion based on the hopes that it actually happened according to the way that you imagine it did.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 25, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> For the life of me, I will never understand why some Believers have such a hard time with the abandoning of Creationism in favor of Evolution.
> 
> Did not the Good Lord give us the ability to reason and to employ logic as part of our growth?
> 
> ...



Because you must not have read the post I made right before yours which explains exactly why. 

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 
(Genesis 3:1)


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 25, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Why does the Religious Right continue to drag their knuckles through the argument over evolution?  I have a theory: arrogance.
> 
> Arrogance concerning the human being as animal.  We humans are mammals.  We are subject to the same evolutionary forces as every other life form of our planet.  The Religious Right cannot accept the fact that they themselves are animals.  they cling to the myth of Genesis that tells them that humans were created separately from animals.
> 
> ...



We classify mankind as an animal, train up little children in schools to believe that they are no different from animals and then wonder "why are they acting like animals?"



> *New school prayer**
> 
> *Now I sit me down in school
> Where praying is against the rule
> ...


[FONT=&quot][/FONT]


----------



## SmedlyButler (Jul 25, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a scientifically established fact.  No scientist is questioning that it is real.  The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening.  You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.
> ...



I urge you to publish...a Nobel Prize awaits.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jul 25, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> ..._Because you must not have read the post I made right before yours which explains exactly why_...


So, it's an all-or-nothing sort of deal with you?

Either ALL of The Bible is true, or we start down a slippery slope where even more of it may be proven to be untrue?

Did I interpret that correctly?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 25, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> Maybe you can tell us what a transitional form would look like so we'd know it when we saw it?  You can describe a fossil (e.g., say a feathered animal that is clearly not a bird) or a living creature (e.g., two species that can mate but won't have viable offspring).  Good luck.



Maybe you can explain the transitional steps between a monkey and a man? 

No hoaxes please.

And while you are at it, perhaps you can explain how the giraffe evolved.


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 25, 2014)

SmedlyButler said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Ya Think ??  - well if Al Gore can get a Nobel - for that half baked BS power point presentation on climate change ......


----------



## Nosmo King (Jul 25, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Why does the Religious Right continue to drag their knuckles through the argument over evolution?  I have a theory: arrogance.
> ...


Okay.  No argument from you.  That's okay.  Stop praying in my school and I'll stop thinking in your church.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 25, 2014)

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 25, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Evolution is a FACT
> 
> God is a theory



Not quite.

That evolution is happening is a fact.
How it works is a theory.
God is a belief.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 25, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
So, you admit there are some contradictions in Genesis in addition to misunderstandings and poor interpretations.   If that is the case for Genesis, and indeed the entire Bible, what does that say about us knowing what God actually said and did?  Maybe he said we evolved an those primitive men wrote created?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 25, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a FACT
> ...



Exactly

Evolution occurs: FACT
How and why evolution occurs: Theory supported by evidence
God: Theory unsupported by scientific evidence


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
I have no problem discussing transitional fossils which is why I brought up the classic archeopteryx.  You didn't explain why you wrote my imagination is playing tricks on me.  Please do.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Why create fossils of creatures that never lived and then bury them for us to find?
> ...


 
I was told the earth was created already fully formed.  For example, at least some of the birds God created didn't have to grow from eggs, they were already adults.  Is that correct?  Also God created the land BEFORE he created animals.  How could there be fossils buried in the land?


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 25, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



That's feasible , considering the word "evolve" more than likely didn't exist in their language .  



> If that is the case for Genesis, and indeed the entire Bible,



Kindly do not mistake me for a Bible Thumper simply because I believe in a supreme intelligence and an intelligent design to the universe . I am not a Christian. 



> what does that say about us knowing what God actually said and did?



A good portion of what I'mtrying to explain lies in abookI haven't had the opportunity to finish reading yet  
*The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief*

The Author coins a term "Bio-Logos" 

BioLogos rests on the following premises:

The universe was created by God, approximately 14 billion years ago.

The properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.

While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, it is possible that the development of living organisms was part of God's original creation plan.

Once life began, no special further interventions by God were required.

*Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.*

Humans are unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the knowledge of right and wrong and the search for God.

The Author is a Christian and a Scientist  who attempts to reconcile the two . I don't agree 100% with what I've read so far, but the basis of his thesis is valid and brilliantly presented.  There is a link to a wikipedia article dealing with it above.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 25, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> But let's take a look at your analogy for a second. You believe that humans are changing and are transitional life forms so which ones are more evolved: Jews, Blacks, Whites or Hispanics?


 
A question that shows you don't fully understand evolution.  We are no _more evolved_ than bacteria.  Both of us have been evolving for the same amount of time, 4 billion years, give or take.  You could say the bacteria are better adapted than we are since they have needed to change very little to survive.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 25, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > It must be my eyes are playing tricks. I look around and find abundant evidence that the universe is VERY, VERY old. I see evidence that all life evolved from a common ancestor. These are obvious contradictions of Genesis. *If that is allegory what part, if any, of the Bible is literally true?*
> ...


 
There is truth in the Bible.  There is also allegory, theology, morality.  The Bible wasn't written as history or as science and to understand the Bible you have to be able to determine the difference.

Many have memorized the words of the Bible but don't have a clue as to their origin and context.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 25, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Miillions of "micro" evolutionary changes can result in "macro" evolution.
> ...


 
A "religion" based on physical evidence right beneath your feet.  If you opened your eyes you'd see for yourself but you're blinded by your faith.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 25, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> That's feasible , considering the word "evolve" more than likely didn't exist in their language .




If you're going to revert to reason and get all logical on me you're going to take all the fun out it.  I'm a Bart Erhman fan myself.


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 25, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > But let's take a look at your analogy for a second. You believe that humans are changing and are transitional life forms so which ones are more evolved: Jews, Blacks, Whites or Hispanics?
> ...



Poor analogy alang, bacteria mutate/adapt at an incredible rate, which is in essence a form of evolution.They evolve / adapt to changing environments continuoslly. 



> Rates of spontaneous mutation per genome as measured in the laboratory are remarkably similar within broad groups of organisms ... Mutation rates in microbes with DNA-based chromosomes are close to 1/300 per genome per replication


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 25, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



If you consider athletic prowess to be the goal of evolution -I'd say Africans 
If you consider raw intellgence to be the goal of evolution -I'd say Asians

Strange thing abouty these two groups the Asian males have the smallest sexual organs , the Africans have the largest.  The Asians - on the Bell curve have the highest IQs  of all races , The Africans have the lowest.  



> There have been studies done that suggest that there is a relationship between race, penis size and intelligence. IQ, so it goes, is very much related to what is in your genes, as well as what is in your jeans.
> 
> Race, IQ and penis size. ~ Eurasian Sensation



So did God intend for Africans to be Brawn and Asians the Brains and what about the White and Native Americans ?   *Or is it all just Random happenstance ?  *


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 25, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



In this case, theory does not apply.  A theory requires facts.  At best, God as an hypothesis.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jul 25, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


You are confusing physiology with culture.


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 25, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



Physiology is relative to evolution . Nature over Nurture is another topic all together - the facts I stated - although unpopular and somewhat politically incorrect are facts none the less - Africans have bigger ding dongs and smaller brains  - while Asians have tinmy ding domgs and larger brains.

You can smash an Asians head very easily with a baseball bat -it's eggshell thin, the typical African you'd have to hit real hard several times - they have much thicker skulls.   You can accuse me of Racism if you'd like - that's the standard LiberalModus Operandi when inconvenient truths are brought up -but I don't belong to any of the aforementioned groups so it's a moot point. 

The point or question being is it Random or Planned - I'mnot taking a stance on this - just curious as to others opinions.


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 25, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



And your post is an opinon about theories and hypothesis which totally misses the point he was trying to relay  - Evolution Does Occur - perhaps nop\t DarwinianTextbook evolution , but species do evolve adapt and mutate.

Significant differences in once isolated Human Populations that developed over time are a prime example of that.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 25, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No, it is not my opinion.  We are discussing science and in science a theory summarizes an hypothesis or group of hypotheses after repeated testing.   I was responding to his comment that God was a theory unsupported by scientific evidence.  In science, you cannot have a theory unsupported by evidence.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 25, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



???....I have a sneaking suspicion that some of those creatures have hatched from eggs since creation.....and they ended up underground the same way that everything else eventually ends up under ground.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 25, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



you see things on a fossil and decide they must be transitional......however, they may simply have had those features...it is your imagination, not the fossils, that create the transition.....


----------



## pinqy (Jul 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


It is true that a particular fossil might not be transitional...it could have been a dead end.  But how do you explain that the fossils do not show current versions of species and that through the layers there is a rough progression (obviously we can't find everything)?


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
If the earth is 6,000 or so years old it is hard to imagine how fossils got buried under 20+ MILES of rock in that short amount of time.  (Please don't say 'Noah' that scenario doesn't fit the evidence).


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
The theory of evolution is science and that means it makes testable, falsefiable predictions.  After 150 years of finding fossils and EVERY one of them fits neatly into the theory it is accepted in the scientific community.

Creationism/ID is not science, it makes no predictions and is therefore not falsefiable.  It can never be proven right or wrong.  You can believe what theologians tell you about science or you can believe what scientists tell you about science.  Your choice.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 25, 2014)

Actually it's merely a theory that some people treat as if it was sacred to them for some unknown reason.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jul 25, 2014)

God created the Universe.

God created the Laws of Physics by which the Universe operates.

God set the Universe and its Laws into motion in order to bring us to the state in which we find ourselves today.

One of the results of this motion is the process of biological evolution.

Got had it planned that way all along, being the Ultimate Physicist and Genetic Engineer.

God started this experiment a few days ago, as He measures time.

To us, several billion years have passed.

Evolution = God's primary tool for biological creation and improvement.

The Hebrew nomads who copy-catted the Babylonian Creation Myth got it all wrong.

But that's OK... such revelations do nothing to alter the Faith of those who truly Believe, in the omnipotence and omnipresence and wisdom and love and compassion and benevolence of their Creator... after all, we're just disagreeing over details, mechanics and timelines, none of which mean the same thing to Man as they are likely to mean to a Godhead.


----------



## SmedlyButler (Jul 25, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Actually it's merely a theory that some people treat as if it was sacred to them for some unknown reason.



The wildest most fantasmagorical myth ever conceived by the minds of men. Given a million years you could not conjure up a rationale to endow it with even the most rudimentary trappings of a Theory. And yet to hundreds of millions it is the most sacred dogma, the keystone belief in their lives. Go figure.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jul 25, 2014)

Maybe the "Theory" of Evolution is considered credible by scientists because it is an observable phenomenon, which is why flue viruses mutate every year to new strains....ya think?


----------



## SmedlyButler (Jul 25, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> God created the Universe.
> 
> God created the Laws of Physics by which the Universe operates.
> 
> ...



Is he a sadist or something? Or just a terrible engineer? (flunked Physics *and* Biology did he?).


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 25, 2014)

pinqy said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



progression?.....you call it progression because you've assumed its transitional.....in reality, all you have is the existence of the fossil in stasis......fossils show no movement.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 25, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



sorry, I didn't realize you were a young earther...../sniggers behind his hand....


----------



## Kondor3 (Jul 25, 2014)

SmedlyButler said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > God created the Universe.
> ...


Beats me...

But a clever Believer would say that (a) the Laws of Physics are just fine and doing what they were designed to do, and (b) we biological creations are still a work-in-progress, and that we're just middle-man carriers of DNA, along the road to something better, far ahead in the mists of a vastly distant future, so, it's pointless to judge as if we (at present) are the End Product?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 25, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



lol....good luck finding a testable prediction about macro evolution......which, conversely, demonstrates why it isn't science......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 25, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> Maybe the "Theory" of Evolution is considered credible by scientists because it is an observable phenomenon, which is why flue viruses mutate every year to new strains....ya think?


how many of them have mutated to something other than a virus?.......call me when they turn into a lotus blossom......


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jul 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe the "Theory" of Evolution is considered credible by scientists because it is an observable phenomenon, which is why flue viruses mutate every year to new strains....ya think?
> ...



Well, if your knowledge of the "theory" of evolution includes a mutation of a virus to a lotus blossom in recorded historical times, I think that I am starting to understand why you are confused about it....


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 25, 2014)

Avatar4321 said:


> Actually it's merely a theory that some people treat as if it was sacred to them for some unknown reason.



Truth is sacred to me.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



We have a theory and abundant evidence to support it.  Also, fossils exist in a given location and along a timeline.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Hey, nothing is impossible.  The earth may be 15 minutes old and we were created with memories that go back years.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Sorry but there are numerous testable predictions.  A tree of life has been built up over the years based on descent from a common ancestor.  If we found a trilobite with a fish hook in its mouth that would be enough to overturn the entire theory.

Can creationism or any other origin story do the same?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 25, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



if that were true, wouldn't you have a memory?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 25, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



good.....then you should have no trouble providing me a link to a successful test.....I look forward to it.....


----------



## SmedlyButler (Jul 25, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



programming the physical laws I would have had gravity be more forgiving to the clumsy beast I had designed who inevitably would trip on a crack in the sidewalk and break an arm, or have to decide whether to burn or jump off a multi-story building. Oh yeah, I can think of a lot of upgrades. How about Earth having a natural defense against stray  asteroids.....The list is endless.
And "along the road to something better"? I think they would say you can't get much better than being "made in His image". Even He looked upon all He had done and saw that it was good, finito. He admired his own work so much he gave himself a day off.


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 25, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



You stated Evolution occurs -Believe it does ,apparently so do you - but our beliefs combined do make it a fact -it's still just a theory.

God's existenec is a theory -I believe a supreme intelligence exists - so do many others ,my definition of what it is is somewhat different than most - but it's a belief and a theory - in the Human Scientific Realm it will probably never be a fact


----------



## Kondor3 (Jul 25, 2014)

SmedlyButler said:


> ..._programming the physical laws I would have had gravity be more forgiving to the clumsy beast I had designed who inevitably would trip on a crack in the sidewalk and break an arm, or have to decide whether to burn or jump off a multi-story building. Oh yeah, I can think of a lot of upgrades. How about Earth having a natural defense against stray  asteroids.....The list is endless_...


Hey, the Deity may be perfect, but that doesn't mean the Universe has to be. Besides, a Perfect Universe wouldn't make a very good Testing Grounds for His creations.



> ...And "along the road to something better"? I think they would say you can't get much better than being "made in His image". Even He looked upon all He had done and saw that it was good, finito. He admired his own work so much he gave himself a day off.


So what if (a) Man was made in His image, but (b) the human race is not yet done slow-cooking, on its way _attaining_ that status?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jul 26, 2014)

Sometimes the best reply is nothing at all. Give em all the rope they want.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 26, 2014)

In order to reject the theory of evolution you have to reject the idea that life began in the most simple of forms, and then over a very very very very long time increased, incrementally, in complexity and diversity.

But once you reject that, what is your plausible alternative?  That species past and present simply appeared, fully formed, out of nowhere?

The horse.  Somewhere, in one instant, a field went from having no horses in it to being populated with many horses.  Poof!!  You find that believable?  You find that plausible given all we know or can imagine about the chance of that having happened?

Evolution is actually quite easy to accept as the best explanation;  all you have to do is compare it to the merits of the alternative explanations.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 26, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



The Bible represents God as a fact, not a theory.  That would make the Bible incorrect on that most important issue then, wouldn't it?


----------



## Marie888 (Jul 26, 2014)

When I first believed in Jesus Christ our Lord, I still believed in evolution myself because that is what I was taught as "fact" in schools and from the general population for the first 24 or so years of my life.  Though over the years I've changed my view entirely upon listening to several scientists or teachers or people's points of view whom from a Creationist standpoint, and most importantly to me, what the Word of God/Bible says about His Creation.  To me, Creation is 100% more logical from a human standpoint and evolution _doesn't even make sense_.  


One reason I say this is that most of us would agree that we everything our own human hands have _created_ suggests _intelligent design_.  Everything we as humans have _created_ with own brains/hands from Lincoln Logs to the Empire State Building suggests "intelligent design" behind it.  We just don't "poof" things into existence ourselves, so how could we say our whole existence was just some "accident"?  Especially with the amazing complexity of the design our own human bodies.   


Overall now my belief is that common sense would show this universe as we know it; the earth, humankind and everything we see in the universe suggests intelligent design. How could we have "poofed" into existence from nothing or evolved from some primodial soup?  


The Bible talks of this also; though sadly some will not even "consider" intelligent design because that would mean having to answer to God.  Here are a couple verses in regard to what we see around us as humans and that we are "without excuse".




> *Romans 1:20
> For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
> 
> 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.*




The Bible also teaches from the very beginning that everything was made "after it's kind".  Meaning, a horse is still a type of horse, a bird is still a type of bird, and humans are humans.  Nothing has "evolved" though there are variations in a species.  Darwin's Finches were still all birds. 



> *Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
> 
> Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> Genesis 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.*




It is my personal belief that the enemy, Satan, is fooling thousands upon thousands with lies and one of those lies is the teaching of any kind of "evolution" instead of God's Creation - to try to keep people from coming to the truth of Jesus Christ our Lord.  

If interested, below are some videos and/or topic links from Scientists/Teachers/Creationists from a creationist standpoint.   I don't agree 100% with everything in the below links/videos, or even how some people in the vids "come across".. but the points of the Creation vs Evolution I mostly agree with. 


*Jason Lisle - PhD in Astrophysics / On the Big Bang*
https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/


*Topics about evolution/Darwin*
https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/


*Age Of The Earth *- K. Hovind
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY]Creation Seminar 1 - Kent Hovind - Age of the Earth (FULL) - YouTube[/ame]

*Dinasours* - K. Hovind

*Evolution Wants To Make A Monkey Out Of You * - Series 
(1 of 5)
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku2CNmlQD_Q]VenomFangX - Evolution Wants to Make a Monkey Out of You part 1.mp4 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 26, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



What I stated was the definition of a scientific theory.  A belief without evidence does not meet that definition.  It is, at best, an hypothesis.  

Evolution is a fact. The proof of that fact is currently lying next to my chair.  If evolution did not occur there would be no such thing as a black lab.  I am not going to deny the obvious just because it might conflict with my beliefs.  You can do as you please.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


wouldn't I have a memory whether it were true or not?


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Maybe I was unclear but EVERY fossil that is discovered is a test of the theory.  It either fits into the theory or it proves that it is either somewhat or completely wrong.

Here is a recent fossil find that appears to fit well into the theory:
Siberian Discovery Suggests Almost All Dinosaurs Were Feathered


----------



## WheelieAddict (Jul 26, 2014)

How about you can believe in God and not follow a religion. God is the grand architect of everything, evolution, science, etc. can fit in Gods plan. I have nothing against anyone that follows a religion, if it helps you lead a good life that is good. Just please don't follow false prophets with petty tricks like Benny Hinn, etc. Idiocy and blind faith doesn't = God or Jesus.


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 26, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



The Bible is not a scientific treatise - it was written by post -primitive people and theoretically divinely inspired.  The concepts of fact and theory did not yet exist- it was basically "I believe it -that makes it fact".


----------



## Kondor3 (Jul 26, 2014)

WheelieAddict said:


> How about you can believe in God and not follow a religion. God is the grand architect of everything, evolution, science, etc. can fit in Gods plan. I have nothing against anyone that follows a religion, if it helps you lead a good life that is good. Just please don't follow false prophets with petty tricks like Benny Hinn, etc. Idiocy and blind faith doesn't = God or Jesus.


A worthwhile sentiment.

If there *IS* a God, then, surely, He gave us the ability to reason, and to sort through difficult choices about what to believe, and what to set aside, at a time of our own choosing or need.

The God of My Understanding does not want me to be a robot.

The God of My Understanding wants me to think for myself, to take the best from the past and set aside the rest, and to deal fairly in the here-and-now, and to help move my race (Mankind) along on its way to a more perfect form, capable of understanding Him better.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 26, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> In order to reject the theory of evolution you have to reject the idea that life began in the most simple of forms, and then over a very very very very long time increased, incrementally, in complexity and diversity.
> 
> But once you reject that, what is your plausible alternative?  That species past and present simply appeared, fully formed, out of nowhere?



I, for one have no problem rejecting it.....my alternative is divine creation.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 26, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


sorry, but that isn't a test, that's the subject that requires testing.....show me a scientific test.....demonstrate that said fossil can only exist because its a transition between two other creatures.....what if, heaven forbid, its actually a transition between two other completely unknown fossils who's line crossed your anticipated transition at right angles.....


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 26, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Your lack of scienetific knowledge is evident .

"Like these other foundational scientific theories, the *theory of evolution *is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the *basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.*"

It's about as close as a theory can come tobeing a fact -but it's still not a fact - it's a theory -of course this all academic because the merits of evolutionary theory are solid - I believe in it -so do you.  But if you're going to debate a scientific topic  you should have a basic knowledgeofwhat you're speaking of - Theory vs. Fact   .... Evolution is a theory.... Capice ?


----------



## GISMYS (Jul 26, 2014)

JUST FACE THE TRUTH=EVOLUTION IS A LIE FROM THE PIT OF HELL!!! == THE BIG problem with evolution is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the FALSE religion to which they are committed. Christians need to wake up to this. Evolution is a FALSE religion; it is not a science!


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I'm sorry you don't like science and the scientific method but, fortunately it is not your call.

If you want something other than what I provided feel free to give me an example of a "scientific" test of creationism.


----------



## SmedlyButler (Jul 26, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> > ..._programming the physical laws I would have had gravity be more forgiving to the clumsy beast I had designed who inevitably would trip on a crack in the sidewalk and break an arm, or have to decide whether to burn or jump off a multi-story building. Oh yeah, I can think of a lot of upgrades. How about Earth having a natural defense against stray  asteroids.....The list is endless_...
> ...



in the Universes we imagine as possible I think. Your diety could just as well be a hyper-advanced e.t. doing a reseach project for his "high school" science fair. That's a scenario I've posted before.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jul 26, 2014)

SmedlyButler said:


> ...in the Univeses we imagine as possible I think. Your diety could just as well be a hyper-advanced e.t. doing a reseach ptoject for his 'high school' science fair. That's a scenario I've posted before.


Anything is possible, although Man, collectively, has probably done a halfway decent job of articulating the Godhead to the meager extent that lies within his power, and most who 'believe' are likely to trust to that articulation as most believable and comforting and in keeping with their inner sense of spirituality and self, rather than dwelling overly-long upon the long-shots.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 26, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



does that mean you aren't going to provide me with a test like you promised?.....next time you want to talk all "sciency" you would be wise to refresh your memory as to what the scientific method actually is......."conforms to the whims of our imagination" is not one of the elements.......


----------



## amrchaos (Jul 26, 2014)

I believe the sky is blue. 

Therefore I practice the Blue sky religion.

Logical, or is this the logical fallacy of equivocation?

You go back and tell those religious posters.  Even old 7-eyes is probably shaking his head at them.


----------



## MaryL (Jul 26, 2014)

GISMYS: I know what science IS. Evolution is a theory, not a DOGMA. Science uses logic, clear, precise facts to define a concept. Religious people have nothing to say about evolution, and that includes you. The same thought process that leads us to evolution also gave us theories about electrons, and led up to the PC you are using NOW. Religion didn't have anything to do with that, one way or the other. Apples and oranges.


----------



## guno (Jul 26, 2014)

Marie888 said:


> When I first believed in Jesus Christ our Lord, I still believed in evolution myself because that is what I was taught as "fact" in schools and from the general population for the first 24 or so years of my life.  Though over the years I've changed my view entirely upon listening to several scientists or teachers or people's points of view whom from a Creationist standpoint, and most importantly to me, what the Word of God/Bible says about His Creation.  To me, Creation is 100% more logical from a human standpoint and evolution _doesn't even make sense_.
> 
> 
> One reason I say this is that most of us would agree that we everything our own human hands have _created_ suggests _intelligent design_.  Everything we as humans have _created_ with own brains/hands from Lincoln Logs to the Empire State Building suggests "intelligent design" behind it.  We just don't "poof" things into existence ourselves, so how could we say our whole existence was just some "accident"?  Especially with the amazing complexity of the design our own human bodies.
> ...



Kent Hovid?? !!!! He got his Ph from a mail order outfit and was caught selling phony degrees from his house. He is now serving prison time in a federal penitentiary 

Kent Hovind (or, to use his correct academic title, Mr. Kent Hovind) is an Independent Baptist young Earth creationist and convicted felon from Pensacola, Florida. He promoted young Earth creationism and dominionist views in lectures and videos sold through his Creation Science Evangelism organization, and started Dinosaur Adventure Land, a small amusement park in his backyard.
In November 2006, he was convicted on a variety of tax-related charges, and received a 10-year sentence with a scheduled release for summer 2015.

Hovind refers to himself as "Dr. Kent Hovind" or as "Dr. Dino" to provide a veneer of respectability to those who have not examined his education or background.[2] He also claims to have "taught high school math and science" for fifteen years.[3] These are less impressive than they sound: he obtained his doctorates by mail-order and never taught at a school requiring accredited credentials.
As of 2013, Hovind claims four doctorates, in education, theology and biblical ministry with an honorary degree in divinity.[4]
His first Ph.D., obtained before his vacation in club fed:
is from Patriot Bible University, a degree mill. Patriot sells doctorates for approximately $2,000.is in "Christian education." Hovind ignores the "Christian" part, instead describing it merely as in "education."
is not recognized by any legitimate university, professional association, or governmental agency. Patriot Bible University only offers "programs which are religious in nature" and their "degrees or diplomas have no state recognition. Is officially unavailable to the public. Real doctoral dissertations are readily available through libraries or online. On December 9, 2009, Hovind's dissertation was uploaded to WikiLeaks and that copy mirrors the substandard quality - with spelling and grammar mistakes typical of a high school student - previously described by the few who had read it.


Despite having no scientific credentials or even an accredited degree, he presents himself as someone who understands the science of evolution better than people with advanced science degrees who research in labs and publish peer-reviewed papers. During his presentations, he sounds like an auctioneer or a used car salesman when he is attempting to make a point by getting his audience to buy a video or book from him. Many of his slideshows read like a top 10 list of commonly seen (and refuted) "evidences" for creationism that contain little to no actual data or proof. These arguments are interjected with unfunny "jokes" and anecdotes, which are topped off with a healthy serving of mined quotes. And like any good creationist, he is not above and in fact seems to enjoy spreading the false claim that Darwin caused the Holocaust.

Anyone who follows him or gives Hovide any credance to him has a very low IQ


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 27, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



I note that you can't hold creationism to the same standards as evolution.  That should be clue that one is science and one is not.  

I'm not able to provide you with a eye witness account of dogs becoming cats so how about these tests of disproving evolution:


Charles Darwin himself proposed a rather strong test of evolution:   "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." [Darwin1859,  pg. 175].  This is the basis of claims by various intelligent design  writers that various biological structures, such as the vertebrate  immune system or the bacterial flagellum, are "irreducibly complex" --  they consist of multiple components that could not develop in the  absence of the others.  However, these structures have been exhaustively  studied in the scientific literature, and scientists have demonstrated  entirely plausible evolutionary pathways.  See Complexity.   
Famed biologist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what evidence  could disprove evolution, mentioned "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian  era" [Ridley2004,  pg. 66].  This is because mammals, according to current scientific  analysis, did not emerge until approximately 40 million years ago,  whereas the Precambrian era is prior to approximately 570 million years,  when only the most primitive organisms existed on earth.   
Biologists had long conjectured that human chromosome  number two was the result of a fusion of two corresponding chromosomes  in most other primates.  If DNA analysis of these chromosomes had shown  that this was not the case, then modern evolutionary theory would indeed  be drawn into question.  This "fusion hypothesis" was indeed confirmed,  rather dramatically, in 1993 (and further in 2005), by the  identification of the exact point of fusion.  For additional details see  DNA.   
Modern DNA sequencing technology has provided a rigorous  test of evolution, far beyond the wildest dreams of Charles Darwin.  In  particular, comparison of DNA sequences between organisms can be used as  a measure of relatedness, and can further be used to actually construct  the most likely "family tree" hierarchical relationship between a set  of organisms.  Such analyses have been done, and the results so far  dramatically confirm the family tree that had been earlier constructed  solely based on comparisons of body structure and biochemistry.   For  additional details see DNA.
from: Is Evolution Falsifiable?
see also: Disproving evolution - RationalWiki


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 27, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


lol.....sorry dude......the fact that your claims about transitional evolution don't meet the standards of the scientific method should be your clue that neither is science





> "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."



okay...so tell me about butterflies......are they crawling creatures that started to evolve into flying creatures because they would have a better chance at surviving but then stopped halfway through.......or are they flying creatures that started to evolve into crawling creatures because they would have a better chance at surviving but then stopped halfway through?........


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 27, 2014)

I don't know where this idea that evolution can't be subjected to a testable hypothesis comes from (other than ignorance, either intentional or not). Right off the top of my head, I can think of two great examples of evolution being subjected to a testable hypothesis.

Paleontologists said there would be a lobe-finned fish at such and such geological layer that would have certain physiological features. Sure enough, they found exactly what they predicted at exactly when they said they would in the form of Tiktaaik. It had the features they expected, it was where they expected, it was when they expected. It fulfilled the hypothesis and met the prediction. Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The other one I can think of is in human genetics. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and apes have 24 pairs. If evolution is correct, there should be a fused chromosome somewhere. Lo and behold, it's human chromosome #2 and chimp chromosomes #2 and #13. We look at our chromosome and see the expected telomeres on the end, a centromere in the middle, but we also see a second centromere and a telomere in the middle, which shouldn't be there unless there was a fusion of two chromosomes. There was a predictable hypothesis and if that hypothesis didn't pan out, evolution was busted. But it did pan out. We found exactly what we expected to find.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 27, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



 Transitional evolution does meet the standards of the scientific method, it is you who won't/can't see it.

I don't think we know everything about butterfly evolution and probably never will.  Insect metamorphosis, which I think is your real question has been extensively studied and appears to fit in the theory of evolution. (How Did Insect Metamorphosis Evolve? - Scientific American)


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 27, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> I don't know where this idea that evolution can't be subjected to a testable hypothesis comes from (other than ignorance, either intentional or not).



probably from the fact you can't test the hypothesis......claiming that what you observe is what you expect to observe is simply circular reasoning, not scientific testing......

I can use the same approach.......hmmm.....if there were an intelligent designer creating human beings, I would expect to find human beings, capable of reproducing, intelligent enough to function, and with  thumbs......holy shit, guess what I found!.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 27, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> Transitional evolution does meet the standards of the scientific method, it is you who won't/can't see it.



even Science Buddies says you're wrong, so you fail even the 4th grade level standard...



> The steps of the scientific method are to:
> Ask a Question
> Do Background Research
> Construct a Hypothesis
> ...


Steps of the Scientific Method

I know, it sucks to be ignorant about science when you worship it, but hey......study a bit, you may get the hang of it......


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 27, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know where this idea that evolution can't be subjected to a testable hypothesis comes from (other than ignorance, either intentional or not).
> ...



Not every hypothesis requires testing in the sense of setting up an experiment. You have a hypothesis and either you find evidence that supports the hypothesis or you fail to find evidence to support the hypothesis. Some fields such as astronomy are almost entirely observation based with almost no real experimentation.

You claim to be a professor. Tomorrow, crack open your faculty directory and call any of your colleagues in any science department and ask them if the discovery of Tiktaalik or the chromosome as I've described above would follow the scientific method. Let us know what they say.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know where this idea that evolution can't be subjected to a testable hypothesis comes from (other than ignorance, either intentional or not).
> ...



You mean like I drop ball and expect to observe it accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2. And, what do you know, it does accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2.

That's not circular reasoning, it is scientific proof.

You are confused.  The reason is that you don't understand what scientific proof is.

You are right about one thing, all you have is circular reasoning.

The distiction is that yout "intelligent designer" is a thing.  You haven't proven that that thing exists.

Newton's law of gravity and evolutionary theory are descriptions of processes that are observable.  They aren't unobservable things.

Here is the problem and it is so basic that it is unfathomable as to why you can't get it.  Maybe, for all I know, you actually cannot distinguish between reality and imagination.  Reality is distinctive in that we are aware of it as an experience of our five senses.  We see it.  We hear it.  We taste it.  We smell it.  We touch it.

As an example, I want you to get a candle, place it on a stand on the desk and light it.  Now, imagine placing your hand above the flame, just touchin the flame, and holding it there for a minute.  Now, repeat this except now really move you arm so your hand is really above the flame.  If you are sane, the second will hurt like a mother fucker.  

The process of heat transfer from the flame to your hand is described by the laws of themodynamics, it describes how heat moves from the flame to your hand.  Like the theory of evolution and Newton's laws of motion, thermodynamics describes the process.  None of them are objects, seperate and distinct from the objects subject to the process of change.  They are descriptive of the change, requiring no additional objects.  

The flame can be observed in reality.    Darwin's finches can be observed in reality.  Bacterium can be observed in reality. A rock can be observed. 

Your hand blistering can be observed. A rock falling can be observed.  Bacterium evolving canbe observed.  And when the body of all natural object of life are considered, how they change is observable in reality.

An "intellegent designer"  cannot be observed as an object in reality. It isn't a description of an observable process.

An "intellegent designer" does not exist in reality.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 27, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!
> 
> I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.
> 
> ...





These pathetic little fables that are invented to somehow "prove" that "creationism" is "legitimate" are as transparent as glass!

The gullible swallow them every time.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Transitional evolution does meet the standards of the scientific method, it is you who won't/can't see it.
> ...



Yeah, you have a very inexperienced and uneducated  understanding of what an experiment is. 

One of the experiments that added further proof to be Einstein's theary of relativity was observing the change in the location of stars during solar eclipse.  Gravitational lensing by galaxies has also provided a natural experiment of the theory of relativity. Neither are laboratory expreriments.  

More importantly, the theory of relativity isn't a thing.  It is a description of a process of things undergoing change.


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 27, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know where this idea that evolution can't be subjected to a testable hypothesis comes from (other than ignorance, either intentional or not).
> ...



Evolution is tested through experimentation.  Experiments are performed in the fields of genetics, paleontology and archaeology. How is intelligent design tested?  How is empirical evidence for the hypothesis of a creator collected?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 27, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



true......only those that claim to be scientific......



> You claim to be a professor.



?????.....no, that would be PostmodernProf.......my name on boards that permit more letters is PostmodernProphet......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 27, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



no....I am not confused.....you have demonstrated scientific proof by dropping a ball and measuring the speed.....imagine what a physics class would say if you claimed you didn't have to measure the speed, because you assumed if you dropped it, it would hit the floor......or if you didn't even bother to drop it, because the ball you saw laying on the floor was adequate proof.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 27, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> As an example, I want you to get a candle, place it on a stand on the desk and light it.  Now, imagine placing your hand above the flame, just touchin the flame, and holding it there for a minute.


sweet....now, assume you want to prove a single celled organism evolved into a human being......light a candle and imagine placing your hand just above the flame.....then, open your eyes and say "a single celled organism evolved into a human being".......Science!.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 27, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



when scientists realized they wanted us to believe things that could not be demonstrated, they created a new scientific method......you come up with a theory and tell people it is true.......they believe you.....its scientifically established......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 27, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



like abiogenesis and macro-evolution, intelligent design is not a scientific theory......if you stop pretending your faith choices are science, you too can be relieved of the necessity of scientific testing......


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 27, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Abiogenesis is a separate field of study from evolutionary biology.  Macro-evolution is well established empirically in the fields I mentioned earlier.  For example, antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria such as TB and MRSA are examples of Macro-evolution in bacteria.  These species of bacteria are put under evolutionary pressure by the medical field which results in bacteria with new genetic material which provides resistance to antibiotics. Evolution is not based in faith, it is a well established science.  The scientists in these fields are not operating based in faith but are abiding by the scientific method.  Just because what they are studying goes above what you are capable as understanding as a layman doesn't change that.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Uh, yeah, you are confused.  The shame of it is your intentially confused.

Making up a bunch of irrelevant "analogies", if they can even be called that, isn't doing you any good.  You already failed the first time.  Why continue "imagining" things instead of actually learning?


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 27, 2014)

I also find it ironic that a proponent of postmodernism is trying to delegitimize evolutionary biology for not abiding by the scientific method.  Postmodernism is an unfalsifiable social theory and violates the scientific method in all its claims.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Now you are just making up shit.


----------



## idb (Jul 27, 2014)

Calling evolution a 'false religion' presumably means that there is, by definition, such a thing as a 'true religion'.
What is a 'true religion'?


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Transitional evolution does meet the standards of the scientific method, it is you who won't/can't see it.
> ...



Science has gone progressed beyond the 4th grade science fair level:
*Misconception: Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.*

*Response: *Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences. 



Misconceptions: Evolution is Not Science


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



That argument fails because it doesn't explain who or what created the creator, despite the fact that the argument logically demands a creator of the creator,

unless it assumes that the creator just happened randomly.  That assumption, of course, destroys the premise of the original argument.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 28, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Zmrzlina said:
> ...



that might explain why I used "and" between them....



> Macro-evolution is well established empirically in the fields I mentioned earlier.


yes...."well established".......no scientifically proven.......just established, in the minds of its believers........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 28, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



you have given me an example where a ball was dropped and its acceleration was measured.......now give me an example where a single celled organism evolved into a multicelled organism and its transition was measured......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 28, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> I also find it ironic that a proponent of postmodernism is trying to delegitimize evolutionary biology for not abiding by the scientific method.  Postmodernism is an unfalsifiable social theory and violates the scientific method in all its claims.


lol....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 28, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I'm no scientist.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 28, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> Science has gone progressed beyond the 4th grade science fair level:



dude, arguing that something which has never been tested and supported is "scientific" is NOT progress......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 28, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> despite the fact that the argument logically demands a creator of the creator



no, not really.....your claim presumes the creator had a beginning.....


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Science has gone progressed beyond the 4th grade science fair level:
> ...


 
What is the source of the Sun's power?


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know where this idea that evolution can't be subjected to a testable hypothesis comes from (other than ignorance, either intentional or not).
> ...


 
Why would you expect to find human beings with thumbs but not wheels?  There actually isn't anything that creationism actually predicts so as a theory it is useless.  If we find a 500 million year old fossil bed, creationism "predicts" we might find fish or dinosaurs or people.  Funny thing, we never do find those dinosaurs or people.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 28, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...


well, if you expected wheels, then your expectation of intelligent design has not been met......personally, I expected that if macro-evolution were true, a multicelled organism might have evolved from a single celled organism......like you, I was disappointed....predictions are such fickle scientists......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 28, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



observe and see.....


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
But we can't perform an experiment so what is the use of observation?


----------



## Chuckt (Jul 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Science has gone progressed beyond the 4th grade science fair level:
> ...



I like your tagline.
I may actually steal it in the future so call the cops.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
I have no expection of ID predictions.  I was asking about the prediction *you* made about ID.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 28, 2014)

The odds of properly assembling a chain of 2,000 proteins is 3.3 * E 5,735 -1, thats a number with 5,735 zeros on it. 

Remember, those are the odds for THOSE EXACT PROTEINS. Once you add in other proteins, and assorted junk, you have to include the odds of NOT allowing them in the mix.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 28, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



then why do you complain about the fact my prediction was fulfilled?.....using your argument, I have turned it into "science"....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 28, 2014)

Chuckt said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



feel free......the whole world should know.....


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 28, 2014)

Chuckt said:


> I like your tagline.
> I may actually steal it in the future so call the cops.


One person tells us what God knows and another repeats it.  Are seeing how scripture was born?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 28, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



we can observe with spectrum analysis happening in real time......show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism.....


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
I'm not complaining, I just want to understand what it was based on.  If there is no theory behind the prediction how is anyone else supposed to make predictions.  That's what it would take to turn it into a science.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 28, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



I think you have just succeeded in showing why your claims of "fulfilling expectations" is not really science........you just look at what you find, then "predict" that something similar to both will eventually show up.....then, you find something and argue its 1) similar to both and 2) proof its transitional......the problem is, it might just be something that has the characteristic (see previous example of butterflies, bats and meadowlarks)........


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree as to evolution being science since you established this "science" strawman. I think we both agree that creationism is not science so where does that leave you? You have no scientific basis for how we got here. That's fine, you really don't need one since (I assume) you're not a scientist, but that puts you exactly on par with whatever creation myth is believed by Hindus, Aztecs, ancient pagans, etc. I prefer to be in different company.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


But butterflies, bats, and meadowlarks all have completely different wing structures.  If we found a mammal with the wing structure of  a bird, then that would DISPROVE evolution, because under current evolutionary understanding that would be impossible.  If the platypus' bill was structurally identical to a ducks (which it's not) or if it's tail was structurally the same as a beaver's (which it's not) those would disprove evolution.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



There is no "evidence of creation and a creator" in DNA.

What might be beyond your comprehension is not necessarily true for everyone else. DNA is comprised of chemical bonds. Chemicals react with one another. Given the time frame of billions of years there is every reason to believe that a chemical reaction created a DNA bond that proved itself to be an evolutionary benefit.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 28, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



If their argument is that the universe was "created" then logically the "creator" was in turn created because everything must have a "beginning" under that scenario.

But to claim that the "creator" always existed while denying that the universe has always existed is nonsensical. 

We have hard physical evidence for the existence of the universe and the laws of physics to establish that it has always existed whereas there is zero evidence for a "creator".


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 28, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Really? Which came first: DNA or proteins?

Again, it's a Simple Math Problem.

The odds of forming a structure with 2,000 elements like say in a protein are 3.3 *E 5735 - 1

There are 3.1 E 16 seconds in a billion years

Do you see the problem?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 28, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Yeah, who created the creator...there you go.

The Creator is beyond human comprehension; it's like expecting an ant to read a set of architectural plans


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Only problem I see is a failure to comprehend how the process actually works. I am sure that the odds of finding a fully formed electric toothbrush on the surface is Mars are astronomical. 

A protein is not a single structure. It consists of amino acids which are chemical compounds. Amino acids combining to form a peptide which then evolves into a protein is how it works.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



So now you have to "cloak" your mythical "creator" in mumbo jumbo because it fails all logic and reason. Hardly surprising since omnipotence is a logical paradox.

That you are forced to twist your position into a pretzel tells me that it has no basis in reality.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 28, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Right!

Right!

Now you're getting it!

The odds of randomly forming compounds which are themselves made of subsidiary compounds might as well be infinite!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 28, 2014)

Any person who believes evolution is a 'salvation issue' simply does not know God.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 28, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I'm not cloaking anything. Humans simply lack the perceptual ability to grasp it, but our ego keeps whispering in our ears, "You're the greatest!!"


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 28, 2014)

Atheists are in the same league as jihadists and far right Christians: beyond the pale.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



You aren't getting it. 

Chemicals naturally form chemical compounds all the time. 
Simple structures are formed from chemical compounds. 
Complex structures are formed from simple structures.

That is how it works. 

You are making the erroneous assumption that complex structures suddenly form all by themselves.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



When you attempt to invoke the ineffability argument you are admitting that you have zero evidence for your mythical "creator".

Your "ego" deflection is further proof that your position is hopeless.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The odds of randomly forming compounds which are themselves made of subsidiary compounds might as well be infinite!


 
 Evolution is NOT a random process so your logic is flawed.  The key is  natural selection a non-random process.

 Do you agree that you have put forward a strawman that has nothing to do with thevolution or can you show where the theory of evolution says there are only random processes involved?


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 28, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The odds of randomly forming compounds which are themselves made of subsidiary compounds might as well be infinite!
> ...



Not to mention that compounds don't randomly form, but are held to the various physical laws. Chemical reactions are very predictable because we understand what's going on. It isn't like stuff just happens and we shrug our shoulders.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 28, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> so where does that leave you?



????....same place I started, with a faith choice.....however, you're left without a scientific basis that you've claimed all your life......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 28, 2014)

pinqy said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


and every claimed transitional fossil is different from the species you claim it links......so?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 28, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The odds of randomly forming compounds which are themselves made of subsidiary compounds might as well be infinite!
> ...



then identify the non random event that forces a single celled organism to change into a multicellular organism......


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > so where does that leave you?
> ...



I agree your choice is one of faith and that is the choice of most people, if they think about it at all.  I'm quite happy and content thinking my choice is based on the evidence.  If there is a God I'm convinced he'll give me a pat on the head and say "I gave you that for a reason, well done".


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 28, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> If there is a God I'm convinced he'll give me a pat on the head and say "I gave you that for a reason, well done".



Enjoy your eternity of fiery torment, you heretic! You earned it by thinking for yourself !


----------



## MDiver (Jul 28, 2014)

Sad that GISMYS still clings to that creationist crap.  Actually believing that a great, "invisible", all-powerful, all-knowing, wise being that created everything, exists.  Clearly, the illogical, is the belief in such things.  One just has to read the Old Testament from cover to cover, to see that the deity was clearly a creation of man, not man a creation from it.
I had that nonsense shoved down my throat throughout my childhood and teen years.  I knew it was crap then and is still crap.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 28, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The odds of randomly forming compounds which are themselves made of subsidiary compounds might as well be infinite!
> ...



Technically we were discussing the origin of life rather than evolution. CF believes that DNA is "evidence" of a "creator". The concept that a couple of billion years worth of chemical interactions coming up with amino acids seems to be beyond his grasp.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Cell division as a means to procreate fails to completely divide and instead you now have a multicellular organism. It then passes that on to the next generation and so it goes.


----------



## BillyP (Jul 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > so where does that leave you?
> ...



Faith means having to reject science. Plainly delusional.


----------



## jillian (Jul 28, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



faith doesn't require one reject science. fundamentalism does.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 28, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


Hilarious.

You're stating PRECISELY why it can't happen by chance. 

The ODDS of molecules randomly forming amino acids and then having them line up perfectly in the only one useful combination are beyond astronomical


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 28, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


You're the greatest.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Molecules naturally form acids. Acids tends to form from a single source. You won't find a random molecule of sulphuric acid forming out of nowhere. Instead you will find lots of sulphuric acid where rain falls on volcanic vents. 

When you have lots of acid forming in the same place having them recombine in different ways to form peptides is ceetainly feasible in a couple of billion years and then it is a baby step to proteins.

Straightforward chemical reactions performed in enough random permutations over a long enough period and it happens. The mathematical odds substantiate that it is feasible given how easily chemicals combine and the end result is life as we know it.


----------



## BillyP (Jul 28, 2014)

jillian said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Faith by definition is the belief in something without proof, which would require one to reject science.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 28, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



lol....then obviously secular means having to reject intelligence....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 28, 2014)

BillyP said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



gosh, that's a really stupid conclusion.....can you give me an example of something I would have to reject because I have faith?.....


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Logic and rational thought.  You are believing wild impossible stories that, based on facts, science and logic, couldn't possibly be true.  If you believe in god, that's an irrational thought.  

And if you don't really believe the Adam and Eve story is factual, and don't really believe the Noah story happened, then why would you believe Jesus was born by a virgin, performed miracles and rose from the dead after a few days of being dead?

And if all those stories are just made up to teach you right and wrong, then so was god.  Sorry to break it to you.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 28, 2014)

BillyP said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



You know what's funny about these people?  They all realize that all the other religions are bullshit.  Christians know that the muslim faith is bullshit.  Most Christians know the Mormon story is just crazy.  Muslims think their way is the only real way.

So if it weren't for their own personal little religions, they'd agree with us that religions are bullshit.  They just can't admit it about their own.  Brainwashed.

In fact, that's what the Mormon faith is founded on.  Joseph Smith asked god what church he should join, the catholics, luterans, presbyterians, protestants, baptists and god himself told him they were all corrupt and to start his own.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 28, 2014)

jillian said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



To have faith you are believing something that you have zero scientific proof of.


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Nothing is proven in science.  The door is never shut completely.  That is what separates science from dogma.  You fundamentally do not understand the scientific method if you believe something has to and can be proven 100%.  For example, all micro-processing technology is based in quantum physics a theory that has huge holes that have not been filled in yet.  Doesn't change the fact that we know enough to make technology from application of the theory that are well established empirically.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 29, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



But evolution worshiping "scientists" can't even make this happen in a lab.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 29, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The odds of randomly forming compounds which are themselves made of subsidiary compounds might as well be infinite!
> ...



Natural selection requires something to select from. It only narrows down preexisting options. It does not and cannot create new options.

If you start with nothing, there is nothing to select.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 29, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe you can tell us what a transitional form would look like so we'd know it when we saw it?  You can describe a fossil (e.g., say a feathered animal that is clearly not a bird) or a living creature (e.g., two species that can mate but won't have viable offspring).  Good luck.
> ...



??


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 29, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



I see the same rocks and the same Grand Canyon that you do. Only I see it for what it is, while you see it for what you wish it was.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jul 29, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> ...If you believe in god, that's an irrational thought...


There is no conflict between logic and reason, theoretical or applied, and the existence of God, if one grasps the limitations of logic, reason and faith.



> ..._And if you don't really believe the Adam and Eve story is factual, and don't really believe the Noah story happened, then why would you believe Jesus was born by a virgin, performed miracles and rose from the dead after a few days of being dead?_...


Because for Creation and The Flood, we're talking about macro-level issues borne-out or disproven by scientific evidence, whereas the Jesus issues dwell on the micro-level and pertain more to individual spirituality, in which logic and reason are next-to-useless?



> ..._And if all those stories are just made up to teach you right and wrong, then so was god. Sorry to break it to you._


And if those stories are actually a mix and match of macro- and micro-level issues, and if some are false and some are true or un-knowable, what then?

The nice thing about Matters of Faith is that skilled Believers can always utilize Logic and Reason to continue to move the goal-posts on you, so that you will never reach the point where the godhead does not exist.

Unfair? Maybe. But it's the price you pay for being in the minority, on a planet where most of the inhabitants are spiritual and/or religious, to some extent or another.


----------



## BillyP (Jul 29, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ...If you believe in god, that's an irrational thought...
> ...



On a planet where most people are fucking stupid. Coincidence?


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 29, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 
A lot of folk here believe the cell is the first living creature and are understandablely skeptical about how such a complex living thing could be evolved from non-living parts.

What they fail to realize is that "life" began with a simple molecule that was able to self-replicate.  When it had that functionality it became subject to natural selection.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 29, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Natural selection requires something to select from. It only narrows down preexisting options. It does not and cannot create new options.
> 
> If you start with nothing, there is nothing to select.


 
This may seem intuitive but it is incorrect.  Take lichen for example.  A lichen is a composite organism consisting of a fungus and a photosynthetic partner growing together in a symbiotic relationship.  Since both benefit from the partnership they likely evolved to cement what was originally a random coupling.  Viola, new options.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 29, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Probably because "*evolution worshiping scientists*" don't actually exist.

On the other hand real scientists do exist and have established beyond any doubt that evolution exists and it is probably only a matter of time before they can replicate that in a lab. After all it was less than 25 years ago that science proved that there are planets orbiting other stars. The math said that those planets must exist but the actual means to detect them was not yet developed. The math works for the origin of life. Now we are waiting for the science to development the means to replicate that in a lab. I am confident that it will be achieved sooner or later.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 29, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


 
Sorry, guess I missed this.  Monkeys and man are very far apart with too many tranitional steps, you'll have to Google that for yourself

You can also Google giraffe evolution but it is easy to imagine the ancestors of the giraffe browsed from trees.  With natural variation some were taller than others.  The taller ones could reach leaves the shorter ones could not so in times of famine they had a better chance of survival and got to pass their genes on.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 29, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


 
OK I'll bite, what do you see the Grand Canyon as?  (Please say evidence of Noah's flood, I love it when people tell me that.)  Do you have any geological education or expertise I should know about?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 29, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



you've rejected that and you say you aren't religious.....must be something else......


----------



## BillyP (Jul 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Oh, like, dinosaur fossils, evolution, the Big Bang. And believe in a flood that covered the earth then magically disappeared... you get the idea.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 29, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> You fundamentally do not understand the scientific method if you believe something has to and can be proven 100%.



I get so tired of fucking idiots saying that.......experimentation, dumbfuck.....experimentation......if you don't have a fucking clue what the requirements of the scientific method are, don't accuse someone else of not understanding it, okay?......


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> > You fundamentally do not understand the scientific method if you believe something has to and can be proven 100%.
> ...



Never ceases to amuse me when those who claim to be religious resort to vulgarities because they are incapable of providing a convincing argument and/or rebuttal to support their position!


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 29, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



but apparently you don't......I don't reject fossils.......I don't reject the fact that 37k different types of beetles evolved.......I accept the Big Bang as the result of God saying "let there be".......and a flood that killed all humans except one family didn't need to cover the entire earth, only that portion where humans lived at the time......so, again.....what do I have to reject of science to have faith in God?......


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 29, 2014)

10,000+  colleges and universities on the planet.

Hand full teach evolution is false.

Only those with a lack of faith in their religious beliefs and are weak believe evolution is a threat to them.

10,000 institutions that are all on the same page is not because of partisan political religious beliefs.
Something about the scientific method and facts, things religious fanatics can never comprehend.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 29, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> 10,000+  colleges and universities on the planet.
> 
> Hand full teach evolution is false.
> 
> ...



so to be clear, you believe science proves humans and mushrooms have a common ancestor?......


----------



## BillyP (Jul 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Ok, you have your own definition of god and don't adhere to any organized religion. That's already better. I've always said that if a god exists, science is just showing us its creation.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > 10,000+  colleges and universities on the planet.
> ...



All life has a common ancestor if you go back far enough. Life evolves to exploit niches in the environment. Mushrooms have theirs and humans are exploiting the environment like very few other life forms have done in the past with only a couple of exceptions like cyanobacteria and stromatolites.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > 10,000+  colleges and universities on the planet.
> ...



Proves?  No.  But the evidence is such that any other conclusion makes no sense at all.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> > You fundamentally do not understand the scientific method if you believe something has to and can be proven 100%.
> ...



What's your scientific background?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 29, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



just YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the religion of Christianity.....nothing more complicated than that.....are you as ignorant of religion as you are of science?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 29, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



so, at some point, half a billion years ago one single celled organism evolved into a multicelled organism........and for some reason, its never happened again.......but, it isn't just random shit happening........and you think science has proved it.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 29, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



now, apart from the fact there ARE mushrooms and humans, what evidence do you have that they share a common ancestor?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 29, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Zmrzlina said:
> ...



obviously more extensive than Zmrzlina's......and if you agree with him, more extensive than yours......I for one, know what the scientific method is......do you have enough scientific background to know what it is?......


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 29, 2014)

I'm a year away from finishing a BS in physics. I'm pretty sure I've encountered a mention of the scientific method once or twice.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



1. Single celled organisms are not visible to the naked eye. 

2. We have not been observing single celled organisms for hundreds of millions of years.

3. Conditions for the evolution of single celled organisms into multi celled organisms are still being researched.

4. Cells, single or multi, don't fossilize therefore we don't have a record for how many times it might have occurred.

5. Science has proved that cells consist of chemicals. 

6. Chemicals occur naturally. 

7. Random events happen all the time.

8. Just because you never saw it doesn't mean that it never happened.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



The basic structure of life.  DNA, RNA, cell structure.  As far as I am aware, there are no silicone based life forms on this planet.  No life forms which have no cells, none which have no DNA.  Unless you can point to any, then any suggestion there is no connection makes no sense.


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



You are making it clear you have no background in science.  Experimentation is the method that empirical evidence is gathered and lays the foundation of scientific knowledge but no amount of experimentation will allow for dogmatic truths.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 29, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Now, now. He probably took science in high school and read something on Wikipedia. How much more do you need?


----------



## pinqy (Jul 29, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


And let's clarify that all that is necessary for evolution. If there was differing chemicals for DNA in different creatures, if more developed creatures only used RNA, if some creatures were silicone based....all that would be possible under a supernatural creator, but would invalidate most of evolution.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 29, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!
> 
> I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.
> 
> ...



You may wish to read this link:

http://web.missouri.edu/~hanuscind/8710/NSTA_Science101theorylaw.pdf

Faith isn't investigatively rigorous; intelligent design (ID) is * at best * an Axiom, assumed true without evidence..  IMO ID is a made up story based on the clergy's effort to maintain some credibility in the Scientific Age.

Evolution isn't a law, it is a theory, but one which has been vigorously studied, and continues to be studied.  ID is accepted as fact - a law - without such vigorous study by many.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 29, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> I'm a year away from finishing a BS in physics. I'm pretty sure I've encountered a mention of the scientific method once or twice.



then why do you ignore it?......


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a year away from finishing a BS in physics. I'm pretty sure I've encountered a mention of the scientific method once or twice.
> ...



He doesn't.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a year away from finishing a BS in physics. I'm pretty sure I've encountered a mention of the scientific method once or twice.
> ...



Why do you accuse others of your own failings?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 29, 2014)

1. Single celled organisms are not visible to the naked eye. 

somebody should invent something....they could call it a "microscope" (patent applied for)....

2. We have not been observing single celled organisms for hundreds of millions of years.

then we missed it.....

3. Conditions for the evolution of single celled organisms into multi celled organisms are still being researched.
/yawn......


4. Cells, single or multi, don't fossilize therefore we don't have a record for how many times it might have occurred.
any non DNA lifeforms roaming around out there?......


5. Science has proved that cells consist of chemicals. 
well yeah.....so are rocks and water.....


6. Chemicals occur naturally. 
we can leaves where they came from for another thread....

7. Random events happen all the time.
not many of them turn single celled organisms into multicelled organisms, though.....

8. Just because you never saw it doesn't mean that it never happened. 
yet some here argue that because we never saw it means it DID happen.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 29, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



digital watches, Sony game platforms, and Gateway computers all use binary code.....that does not mean they are descended from each other.....it just means their intelligent designer used something that works to make them........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 29, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



and, in the case of macro-evolution, the lack of experimentation is ignored in the acceptance of dogmatism......


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 29, 2014)

PredFan said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



It is unkind to argue with the mentally ill.


----------



## BillyP (Jul 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Christianity rejects science, and that you believe in the Big Bang makes you not a Christian, you can't just pick and choose what you'll believe, that gets you a ticket on the bus to the highway to hell. Seems YOU'RE pretty ignorant of Christianity.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> 1. Single celled organisms are not visible to the naked eye.
> 
> somebody should invent something....they could call it a "microscope" (patent applied for)....
> 
> ...



In other words you have no valid rebuttal of the facts. Thanks for tacitly conceding your position. Have a nice day.


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



No in the case of macro-evolution the empirical evidence found in the fields of genetics, paleontology and archaeology are ignored by you and other proponents of Intelligent Design dogma.  What is the point of scientific inquiry when we can point to supernatural explanations for our gaps in our understanding of the natural world?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 29, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...


your arguments reject reality.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 29, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Single celled organisms are not visible to the naked eye.
> ...



???....every statement I made WAS fact....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 29, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Zmrzlina said:
> ...



I have seen that this is the new mantra for the left....


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Yes.  Just as we use the biological process of evolution to breed domestic animals.  Which only supports what I was saying, so thanks for the example.  Continuing with that theme, each of those items descended from a common ancestor.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 29, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



Christianity does not reject science.  There is nothing in it which conflicts with science in any way.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 29, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> 10,000+  colleges and universities on the planet.
> 
> Hand full teach evolution is false.
> 
> ...


I'm not a religious fanatic. 

Not only are the odds against evolution but recently discovered properties of genetically altered cells to revert back to their pre-engineered state seems to indicate its a "machine" with a built-in fail safe mechanism.

Does that mean is was designed by the guy with long white beard on the Sistine chapel... Who the fuck knows.

Like Hillary said what difference does it make


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 29, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Ya... Christians totally embrace the science of talking snakes..  

And the science of the walking dead..


----------



## pinqy (Jul 29, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...


There was a talking donkey, too.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 29, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


so slow....waiting for the environment to kill off the bulls we don't want.....Herefords alone took fifty million years.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 29, 2014)

pinqy said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



wiser than the average atheist, I've been told......


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 29, 2014)

pinqy said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Turns out that they are pretty comon.


----------



## Ronin (Jul 30, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a scientifically established fact.  No scientist is questioning that it is real.  The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening.  You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.
> ...



Your citing two cases of fraud and stating there is no evidence of transitional fossils?  Wow.  You state you somewhat agree with it, how? Which part?  

Bohlinia, Pezosiren portelli, proboscideans, Dimetrodon, Archaeopteryx, Sinornis, Tiktaalik, Gerobatrachus hottorni, Odontochelys semistestacea, a few of those transitional fossils.  What is your classification of geological evidence?  If the foundation has "having been there in person" for factual agreement then religion will be your only comfort.  (Your weren't there during that either though) Keep in mind people like the op see carbon dating either as inaccurate or a ploy of Satan. 

Any kind of conversation will only go so far when the debate is comparing even the investigative methods of science to what they consider REALITY based on:


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Remember geometry in 9th grade? You might have been exposed to the formula for circumference of a circle. C=2&#960;r 

Turns out that math in the Bible is slightly different. Seems Solomon was building some stuff for God's Temple, including big bowl thing. The Bible very clearly says the diameter of this bowl thing was "ten cubits from the one brim to the other" but the circumference of this big bowl thing was "and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." (1 Kings 7:23)

If the diameter is 10 cubits, that means the radius is 5 cubits (because 1 diameter is equal to 2 radii. 10/2=5). So using our formula, we can plug in the values we have. So 

C=2*&#960;*5
So our answer is 31.416 cubits

Wait a minute. Our answer is 31.416 cubits, but the Bible answer is 30.0 cubits exactly.

What gives? Is the Bible wrong or is math? If it's the literal truth, is rounding down consistent with every word being the Inherent and Ineffable Word of God?

So maybe a talking ass is wiser than me, but at least I can still do junior high math.


----------



## AtheistBuddah (Jul 30, 2014)

*sigh

Alright GISMYS, listen closely because I'm only going to say this one. Evolution IS NOT a religion. It doesn't even address the question of a bio genesis at all. It is merely the change of organisms over time. That's it.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 30, 2014)

AtheistBuddah said:


> *sigh
> 
> Alright GISMYS, listen closely because I'm only going to say this one. Evolution IS NOT a religion. It doesn't even address the question of a bio genesis at all.* It is merely the change of organisms over time. That's it*.



Which is not actually what you mean. And you know it.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 30, 2014)

Ronin said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



If your imagination of the Bible comes from a children's story book I guess I can see why you think of it the way you do.


----------



## AtheistBuddah (Jul 30, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> AtheistBuddah said:
> 
> 
> > *sigh
> ...



What are you talking about? Of course that's what I meant. If I didn't mean it then why would I say it?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 30, 2014)

pinqy said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



If you tell an evolutionist that a donkey talked then he will laugh. But when they tell us that you and I came from a rock we are suppose to say that is science. 

I guess the only problem you should have is that the donkey spoke too soon. Give him a trillion years and you would be okay with it.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 30, 2014)

AtheistBuddah said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > AtheistBuddah said:
> ...



Of course that is what you meant to say. But you don't really mean that it is just the change of organisms over time. You mean that it is the change of kinds such that you have a human and a banana evolving from a common ancestor. No such change has ever been observed.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 30, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



This is science. You shouldn't have to google it to know. You should know it by heart. Not believe what someone else tells you.



> You can also Google giraffe evolution but it is easy to imagine the ancestors of the giraffe browsed from trees.  With natural variation some were taller than others.  The taller ones could reach leaves the shorter ones could not so in times of famine they had a better chance of survival and got to pass their genes on.



Please. That does not explain how the giraffe came into being. It only tells me that some giraffes that already existed adapted and the ones with taller necks survived. 

Again. Could you please explain how it evolved (i.e. came from something it wasn't), *not* adapted.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 30, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Natural selection requires something to select from. It only narrows down preexisting options. It does not and cannot create new options.
> ...



Once again, you are telling me about two existing organisms adapting to an environment. A selection between two existing options.

This is very simple. I wish I could say I am surprised, but I am not. The Bible tells us in 2 Peter 3:5:

"For this *they willingly  are ignorant* of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and  the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 30, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...




Maybe you should consider the following:



> A Spelling Lesson
> The common word for circumference is  _qav_.  Here, however, the spelling of the word for circumference, _qaveh_, adds a _heh_ (h).
> In the Hebrew Bible, the scribes did not alter any text which they  felt had been copied incorrectly.  Rather, they noted in the margin what  they thought the written text should be. The written variation is  called a _kethiv_; and the marginal annotation is called the _qere_.
> To the ancient scribes, this was also regarded as a _remez_, a hint of something deeper.  This appears to be the clue to treat the word as a mathematical formula.
> ...


http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/158/


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 30, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



So the Bible has to be corrected.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 30, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> This is science. You shouldn't have to google it to know. You should know it by heart. Not believe what someone else tells you.


 
Has God talked directly to you?  No, I think you believe what someone who lived 2,000 years ago has told you in the Bible.  Even Reagan said "trust but verify".



THE LIGHT said:


> Please. That does not explain how the giraffe came into being. It only tells me that some giraffes that already existed adapted and the ones with taller necks survived.
> 
> Again. Could you please explain how it evolved (i.e. came from something it wasn't), *not* adapted.


 
If you saw a short-necked, antelope-like animal wandering the forest a million years ago would you be able to accept that was the ancestor of the giraffe AND the antelope?  Just an off-the-top-of-head hypothetical but the idea being that ancestor was both a giraffe and an antelope.  No different from saying the ancestor of the monkey and of man was both.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 30, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


 
Evolution is not like creationism, it says life does not pop into being fully formed it says ALL life came from existing life adapting to an environment.  If you think a lichen is the same as a fungus and an algae you miss the point.  The lichen can live where neither fungus nor algae can survive alone.  It is a new option for survival and what it may become as it adapts is even more different for the original fungus and algae.


----------



## GreenBean (Jul 30, 2014)

Ronin said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Let me begin by stating that your references to Noahs ark and Adam and Eve are cute, would you mind if I inserted a Santa Claus and Easter Bunny so as to give a sort of  mythological balance to your imagery ?  

The purpose of the post you cited was to point out the difference between theory and fact.  The statement that I "somewhat agree with it"  was my acknowledgement that it is a very plausible theory.

Bohlinia was an animal that bore resemblance to Giraffes 
Proboscideans, {mastodon, mammoth} were animals that bore resemblance to elephants 

What these fossils have in common is that there is no transiton record from Proboscidean to elephant - just a sudden disappearance of one group and later appearance of another - that one is the ancestor of the other is very probable.  But not proven  - it's a theory.

And if true, it does not proove a gradual evolution of one species into another over time - on the contrary it points to a sudden "morphing"  induced by calamity.

There are some intermediate species, there are even varying varieties of extant species - as a matter of fact , just yesterday while fishing I hooked a fish with wings - it's called a sea robin .  I don't eat sea robins so I gave it to the different type of man sharing the charter boat with us - he's called a china man .

*Evolution :  It's a theory that I somewhat agree with - however it has alot of holes in it .* However - Not as many holes as the literalist adovcates of creationism have in their thesis -  Capice ?


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 30, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> The Bible tells us in 2 Peter 3:5:
> 
> "For this *they willingly are ignorant* of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"


 
Are we willingly ignorant or have we been fooled by a deceptive God who created something to look like something it isn't?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 30, 2014)

HUGGY said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



There are Christians who reject science.  There are Buddhists who reject science.  There are Atheists who reject science.  Christianity, however, does not.  What you are doing is assuming something is true solely because you believe it is true rather than examining the facts and coming to a conclusion based upon those facts.  Which essentially means you are rejecting science.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



I see.  I suppose I should not have expected more.  Have a nice day.


----------



## BillyP (Jul 30, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



So which scientist discovered that the world was made in 6 days? What was his scientific proof? And what about making Eve out of a man's rib? Has that been proven in a laboratory? By whom? ...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 30, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



Before grass evolved herbivores were eating the leaves of shrubs and trees. Once grass started to take over from the forests herbivores evolved to eating grass. However there was still food to be found on the leaves of the trees therefore some herbivores evolved to take advantage of that food source. 

The environment drives evolution. As it changes so species adapt or die off. With the forests being replaced by grasslands mankind evolved from being tree dwelling to becoming hunter-gatherers.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 30, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Are you a biblical literalist?  If so, then I suppose you will believe what you wish.  Or are simply taking the position that every Christian is a biblical literalist because that is what you wish to believe, rather than examining the facts.  Again... rejecting science.

According to the Pew research in 2009, 48% of professional scientists identified belonging to one religion or another, primarily Christianity, while 27% identified as either Atheist or Agnostic.  The balance either didn't care or refused to respond.  So, according to you, 48% of professional scientists reject science.  

There is nothing in Christianity which conflicts with science.  There are just people who refuse to look at reality and insist what they believe must be true.  You don't have to be a Christian to fall into that category.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



yes, but you can't do junior high debate......let me ask you this, do you think the average Christian gives a fuck about whether Solomon's blueprints were accurate?.....in this instance, I think its obvious the ass was wiser, though perhaps not as precise.....


----------



## BillyP (Jul 30, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



So Christians believe that the world wasn't made in 6 days, that Noah wasn't 600 years old, that the flood never happened... Which means you're not a Christian. Pretty simple really.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> So the Bible has to be corrected.



well, there you have it then......we have to find a different means of salvation because God didn't report his results to two decimal places......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible tells us in 2 Peter 3:5:
> ...



well, now that you ask....I have noticed that in you.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



I'm not sure what you expected but it is obvious ignorance to compare animal husbandry with random evolution instead of comparing it to intelligent design......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


do you at all acknowledge the fact that when you claim something is proven by science you incur an obligation to prove it scientifically.....do you not see that there is a different standard when someone simply chooses to believe something?......your problem stems from the fact you refuse to admit your faith......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Before grass evolved herbivores were eating the leaves of shrubs and trees.



are you certain that shrubs and trees evolved before grass?.....


----------



## BillyP (Jul 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way for a god. That's not faith that's reality. Faith is believing in the tooth fairy, or that the world was made in 6 days by some invisible superbeing.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...


yes, in this instance you are pretty simple.....I am a Christian, I don't believe the world was made in six days, I don't believe Noah was 600 years old, actually I do believe there was a flood although not literally as described in Genesis.....what I DO believe is that Jesus was God incarnate who died for my sins and that therefore I will spend eternity in heaven.....and THAT is what makes me a Christian.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



well tell you what....when it comes to the claim that man evolved from some original single celled organism that spontaneously erupted from a puddle of mud, I'm an agnostic......I see no proof for it......and that isn't faith, that's reality.....believing in macro evolution is believing in the toothfairy......believing in abiogenesis is no different than believing in Santa Claus......you expect me to believe it, you come up with some proof......


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


 
If you're looking for examples of willful ignorance look no further:

*"man evolved from some original single celled organism that spontaneously erupted from a puddle of mud"*


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



well imagine that.....we agree on something......I only consider myself an agnostic regarding that claim...would you consider yourself an atheist when it comes to macro-evolution and abiogenesis?......


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 30, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



I would say most Christians believe those were allegories rather than factual descriptions.  But, of course, that means they are not Christians because a Christian is what you say it is regardless of what the facts might say.  As I said, you don't have to be a Christian to fall into the category of insisting what you believe is true regardless of the facts.

If you were referring to me specifically, I'm not a Christian and have never been one.


----------



## BillyP (Jul 30, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



In general, not just referring to you, if you don't believe that the bible is true and is god's words, then you're not a Christian. You can believe that you still are, but you'd be wrong.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 30, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



We are talking science and not the Bible, religion or Christianity.

It has NEVER been the goal of science to prove the Bible wrong. 
It is the religious, YOU, who's faith is so weak and shallow that believes that science is a threat to YOU.


----------



## BillyP (Jul 30, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



I have no faith, I'm agnostic, as I don't see any proof either way for a god or not. Science in fact disproves pretty much anything the bible says.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 30, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



No, no, no, you got it all wrong man, because it was just a mistranslation that nobody had bothered to fix in any of the countless versions of the Bible that have been published in the last 2000 years. I mean, why would they fix something that minor considering it's only the inherent, ineffable, and infallible Word of God? You don't really need to get it right when good enough will do.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 30, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...


There's a difference between true and literally true. Most denominations teach that the truth in Genesis is that God created everything but humans created a separation between us and God (the Fall). That does not require the literal creation or a world-wide flood to be true.


----------



## BillyP (Jul 30, 2014)

pinqy said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


Well, if you don't believe in Noah and his boat, then you're not a Christian. You can think you are, but you'd be wrong. You can even make up a new religion (denomination), but you'd still not be a real Christian, just a faker.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



It was so insignificant that you spent the time and effort to give me a negative reputation thing AND this comment "seriously?.....math accuracy?.....that's the best you got?...." Allow me to quote the great philosopher Han Solo "must of hit pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up like that..."

Riddle me this, if the scientific accuracy of the Bible, (inherent, ineffable, infallible Word of God and all that) can't be trusted to get junior high math right, why in the world should I be expected to just throw away the four centuries of scientific work we've done in favor of said Bible?


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
We are here.  The only mechanism to get us where we are today I can see any evidence for is evolution.  Abiogenesis is another thing we both agree on.  I think it most likely that it was a natural phenomenon but the exact mechanism is unknown to me.  If that makes me agnostic so be it.  It was probably natural but it could have been God, ET, or the Flying Spagetti Monster.  We don't know for sure.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 30, 2014)

BillyP said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



You do realize that neither the Catholic, Orthodox nor most mainstream Protestant churches require or advocate a literal reading of Genesis?  Lot of people you're saying aren't Christians.  What is your authority to define Christianity again?  I missed it.

But let's look.  You must have missed it earlier in this thread when I posted it:
Genesis 30:37-41
37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.

38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.

39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.

41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.

But according to Evolution and Genetics, the rods would have no effect on the offspring.

So all we have to do is copy Jacob and see which prediction is correct: Will trees stripped of bark cause similar patterns as the Bible states, or will there be no effect as science states?

If you take the Bible literally, then that passage must be true with the specified cause and effect. And yet we know that will not work.

Next let's turn to our good friend Joshua.
10:12   Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

10:13   And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day

and then in 2 Kings
20:8   And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the LORD will heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the LORD the third day?

20:9   And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees?

20:10   And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees.

20:11   And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

But we now know that the sun does not move around the Earth as both those stories state.

So, unless you're one of the few geo-centrists (and yes, they still exist) then you cannot take those two stories literally.

And unless you're deluded beyond belief, you can't believe that offspring are affected by what their parents look at while breeding.


----------



## BillyP (Jul 30, 2014)

pinqy said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



What this shows is a) science has disproved the bible, so it can't be the word of god, and b) there are for sure tons and tons of fakers who think they follow the bible, but don't, and just pick and choose what they want to believe in.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 30, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



You can believe that if you like.  But if you think your belief alone makes it true, then you are rejecting science.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Before grass evolved herbivores were eating the leaves of shrubs and trees.
> ...



Yes!



> DINOSAURS DID NOT EAT GRASSES
> 
> The origin of the grasses can be dated by the appearance of grass pollen in the fossil record. The grasses and their relatives have distinctive pollen that is nearly spherical and with a single pore. Grass pollen itself can be distinguished by minute channels or holes that penetrate the outer, but not the inner, pollen wall (Linder and Ferguson, 1985). The earliest firm records of grass pollen are from the Paleocene of South America and Africa, between 60 and 55 million years ago (Jacobs et al., 1999). This date is after the major extinction events that ended the age of dinosaurs and the Cretaceous period.
> 
> ...





> WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE GRASSES ORIGINATED
> 
> Some characters associated with the success of the grass family evolved long before the first grass appeared in the forest and thus cannot be used to explain their current ecological dominance. The grasses are wind-pollinated but so are all their relatives (Linder and Kellogg, 1995). From this we can infer that wind-pollination originated millions of years before the grasses appeared on earth. Along with wind pollination comes a reduction in perianth size and loss of pollen stickiness (Linder, 1998). All the relatives of the grasses similarly accumulate silica somewhere in the plant so that silica accumulation also must have originated well before the grasses themselves did. In addition, a large set of monocotyledonous plants, including not only the grasses, but also the gingers, pineapples, and palms, have cell walls rich in ferulic acid. Ferulic acid in the cell walls must therefore be an ancient characteristic preserved in the grasses.
> 
> ...



Evolutionary History of the Grasses


----------



## pinqy (Jul 30, 2014)

BillyP said:


> What this shows is a) science has disproved the bible, so it can't be the word of god, and b) there are for sure tons and tons of fakers who think they follow the bible, but don't, and just pick and choose what they want to believe in.


I disagree. What I have shown is that those particular instances cannot have occurred exactly as described. It does not preclude them being embellished stories and it doesn't speak at all as to any kind of divine inspiration.  Additionally, it is my understanding that Judaism has never insisted on a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, and neither has the Catholic or other ancient churches. It was only with the creation of Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal churches that literalism became an issue. As  far as I know, only the so-called "Fundamentalist" Christian churches and "Fundamentalist" Muslim groups adhere to literalism in the Creation story.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Riddle me this, if the scientific accuracy of the Bible, (inherent, ineffable, infallible Word of God and all that) can't be trusted to get junior high math right, why in the world should I be expected to just throw away the four centuries of scientific work we've done in favor of said Bible?



perhaps because anyone with a lick of intelligence would realize that the Bible wasn't written to teach you mathematics.....now again, what scientific work of the last four centuries do you have to throw away to believe in what the Bible says about God, you, and your relationship?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



the fact we are here is as much proof of God's creation as it is proof of macro-evolution.....in a nutshell, none.....attempting to claim otherwise is only circular reasoning.....



> Abiogenesis is another thing we both agree on.



that it is willful ignorance, yes....


----------



## BillyP (Jul 30, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Science just describes what a god created, if such a god even exists. So seeing as the bible doesn't line up with science, it can't be the word of the god.


----------



## BillyP (Jul 30, 2014)

pinqy said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > What this shows is a) science has disproved the bible, so it can't be the word of god, and b) there are for sure tons and tons of fakers who think they follow the bible, but don't, and just pick and choose what they want to believe in.
> ...


If you don't believe that god plopped down Adam fully formed and made Eve out of his rib, then you're not a Christian. Kinda simple really.


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 30, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



A cubit was the length from a person's elbow to their fingertips, so it was a subjective unit of measurement to begin with.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



as I recall, the shrubbery eaten by dinosaurs went extinct at the same time the dinosaurs did.....when did the shrubs and trees of the dry savannas that giraffes eat evolve?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

BillyP said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



and has science proven otherwise?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



wait.....you mean everyone's forearm isn't the same length?.....obviously we'll have to rethink salvation!.......


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



That was exactly my point, are you dense?


----------



## BillyP (Jul 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


Science hasn't proved that, so,it can't be a scientific fact. See how that works?


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph you keep insisting that there is no evidence of Macro-evolution but simply saying something over and over doesn't make it so.  There are far too many examples of macro-evolutions to even list and more are discovered everyday.  As I mentioned earlier the evolutionary adaption for resistance in bacteria to commonly used antibiotics is an example of macro-evolution we have witnessed in our lifetime.  It is a scourge of the medical field and according to proponents of intelligent design dogma it is a complete fantasy.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Riddle me this, if the scientific accuracy of the Bible, (inherent, ineffable, infallible Word of God and all that) can't be trusted to get junior high math right, why in the world should I be expected to just throw away the four centuries of scientific work we've done in favor of said Bible?
> ...



Given that one of the core disciplines of Science is Mathematics you would have to drop Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Astronomy, Geology, Engineering, etc, etc.

FYI the bible not only fails at Pi, it also fails basic counting and addition sums.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Please provide credible substantiation that the "shrubbery eaten by dinosaurs went extinct at the same time the dinosaurs did".


----------



## Nosmo King (Jul 30, 2014)

To the Creationists:

Is mankind animal, vegetable or mineral?  I know it sounds silly at first read, but I think that Creationists are not about to admit that Homo Sapiens is part of the animal kingdom.  You fervently believe that mankind was 'created' separately from all other animal life.  You believe that mankind emerged upon the scene wholly formed, like a potted geranium.  That mankind was 'created in the image of God' and therefore uniquely immune to the vagaries of evolution.

I further believe that you Creationists see the theory of evolution as a means to refute God.  And that you see the theory of evolution as flawed because of its packaging as 'theory', not law.

Evolution does not refute God.  It does refute the mythology set forth in Genesis.  Evolution, along with Biology in general are tools to understand the mechanics of the natural world.  This understanding is granted by God due to our massive brain pans.  Do you suppose mankind would have advanced from a nomadic people to a species capable of travelling from the earth itself without science and mathematics?  Why then should mankind be shackled to mythology?

Other cultures developed an origin of the species myth.  Why should the myth of Genesis be the only valid one?  Why should this myth be taught in science classes?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 30, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



So what?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 30, 2014)

BillyP said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



If you don't wear bunny ears on alternative Thursdays, then you're not a human being.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 30, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


So I'm good, then? Or do they have to be pink?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 30, 2014)

pinqy said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



No need to get dogmatic.  Any color is fine, but they have to be fuzzy,


----------



## The Irish Ram (Jul 30, 2014)

> What I have shown is that those particular instances cannot have occurred exactly as described.



There is an error in your logic.  You are relying on your intelligence.  Your 10% of active brain knowledge.

God's thoughts and ways are far above our own.  He can make things occur exactly as described.  He is not working with limited understanding like you and I are.  For instance, He created dimensions long ago, and then went on to describe their properties.  We just now found them, and have no idea about their properties.


----------



## Ancient lion (Jul 30, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> To the Creationists:
> 
> Is mankind animal, vegetable or mineral?  I know it sounds silly at first read, but I think that Creationists are not about to admit that Homo Sapiens is part of the animal kingdom.  You fervently believe that mankind was 'created' separately from all other animal life.  You believe that mankind emerged upon the scene wholly formed, like a potted geranium.  That mankind was 'created in the image of God' and therefore uniquely immune to the vagaries of evolution.
> 
> ...



You mean by " Creationists", those who know that "God" created the whole universe. So non-creationists are -by def- agnostics or atheists ?!


----------



## Nosmo King (Jul 30, 2014)

Ancient lion said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > To the Creationists:
> ...


Hardly.  I am a Christian and I believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.  But I am not a literalist nor an absolutist.  

I know that the Bible is a book of great inspiration and spirituality.  It is also a book of parable.  It is also a chronicle of God's actions and interactions with mankind.  The Bible is also filled with stories of sex, war, violence, comedy, drama, poetry and love.  But the Bible is not a textbook for scientific understanding.  It is not a geology text nor an astronomy text, nor a Biology text.  Those scientific pursuits are not driven by the writings in the Bible.

I don't understand that absolutist attitude among Creationists.  It's as ridiculous as "you're either with us or against us".  Evolution does not refute the existence of God.  It only refutes the mythology set forth in Genesis.


----------



## BillyP (Jul 30, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Ancient lion said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



If you don't believe genesis, you're not a Christian, it's that simple.


----------



## BillyP (Jul 30, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > What I have shown is that those particular instances cannot have occurred exactly as described.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He also makes deformed babies, disease, cancer, Ebola...


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Riddle me this, if the scientific accuracy of the Bible, (inherent, ineffable, infallible Word of God and all that) can't be trusted to get junior high math right, why in the world should I be expected to just throw away the four centuries of scientific work we've done in favor of said Bible?
> ...



We've been having this exact same conversation since 1543 when Copernicus had an idea that the Earth wasn't the center of Creation. The Bible is many things, but it's not a science text. But it also can't be wrong, can't be inaccurate, can't be open to interpretation because if it is anything but the literal truth direct from God, then what?

The evolution debate isn't about unanswered questions about transitional fossils and genetic markers and carbon dating methods. It's about if we weren't actually created in the Garden of Eden, then what else do we have to reconsider? If humans really are descended from a common ancestor with apes, then are we really touched by God or is there some bit of human dignity that we are just imagining? It comes down to small minded people uncomfortable with having to deal with those questions and convincing people who are scientifically illiterate that the science is just plain wrong.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 30, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Well, since it doesn't say that bowl was 10 Bob cubits in diameter and 30 Joe cubits in circumference, the only logical conclusion is that the unit of measurement when describing that bowl was used throughout the entire process.

The mental gymnastics some people use to defend the indefensible is astonishing. Maybe, just maybe, the Bible is inaccurate in describing that bowl.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 30, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > What I have shown is that those particular instances cannot have occurred exactly as described.
> 
> 
> 
> There is an error in your logic.  You are relying on your intelligence.


Which is what you need for logic. And I have yet to find any method of knowledge more reliable than logic and reason.



> Your 10% of active brain knowledge.


Good example....you're citing a myth.  We actually do use 100% of our brain.



> God's thoughts and ways are far above our own.  He can make things occur exactly as described.  He is not working with limited understanding like you and I are.  For instance, He created dimensions long ago, and then went on to describe their properties.  We just now found them, and have no idea about their properties.


First, the story of Jacob and the striped branches doesn't claim God's intervention (well, Jacob does later give credit to God, but the story itself is told as a natural process). So adding in "God did it" is not the way it was described, so my claim holds true.

As for stopping and reversing the sun from moving around the Earth, God could not stop it because it doesn't do it. It's not a matter of how powerful God is or His capabilities, it's a matter of he can't stop something that doesn't happen. Similarly, while an all-powerful God could stop the rotation of the Earth, while compensating for inertia etc etc to make it appear as if the sun stopped or reversed, but again...that's not how it was described, so again, I am correct that it could not happen as described. The description was as if the sun went around the Earth, which it does not.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Zmrzlina said:
> ...



nope....just hopelessly sarcastic.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



I have.....but you believe science has proven something contradictory.....do you see why it hasn't worked?....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> There are far too many examples of macro-evolutions to even list and more are discovered everyday.



demonstrate one......preferrably, demonstrate the simplest....a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism.....if you can't do that, certainly you can't demonstrate a single celled organism evolving into a human being......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



lol.....dude....I do not have to reject the value of Pi to be a Christian......apparently you had to reject logic to become an atheist.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



well, no......because I really don't give a fuck whether it did or not......I'm simply thinking back about the earliest trees and recalling that they weren't birches and ash and honeysuckle.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> That mankind was 'created in the image of God' and therefore uniquely immune to the vagaries of evolution.



I would say you have that right....did you figure it out all by yourself?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



bastard!.....it's Wednesday.....I'm starting my own church!........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

BillyP said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Ancient lion said:
> ...



no, you're that simple......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

BillyP said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > > What I have shown is that those particular instances cannot have occurred exactly as described.
> ...



I'm pretty sure people make deformed babies.....the only baby he's claimed to have a hand in was Jesus......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...


we may be having the same conversation, but this time its YOU instead of the church fathers that is claiming the Bible is supposed to be taken as an authority on the science of mathematics or biology.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



again, who gives a fuck.....do you think you can win this argument by claiming the authenticity of the Bible hinges on whether they rounded off the circumference of a circle to 30 feet instead of 31.74?......why not complain that they "rounded off" the time Jesus spent in hell to three days instead of just being a night, a day and a morning.....wtf, couldn't have have spent a full 72 hours like everyone else who died and came back?......


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> > There are far too many examples of macro-evolutions to even list and more are discovered everyday.
> ...





> Triassic origin and early radiation of multicellular volvocine algae
> 
> Abstract
> Evolutionary transitions in individuality (ETIs) underlie the watershed events in the history of life on Earth, including the origins of cells, eukaryotes, plants, animals, and fungi. Each of these events constitutes an increase in the level of complexity, as groups of individuals become individuals in their own right. Among the best-studied ETIs is the origin of multicellularity in the green alga Volvox, a model system for the evolution of multicellularity and cellular differentiation. Since its divergence from unicellular ancestors, Volvox has evolved into a highly integrated multicellular organism with cellular specialization, a complex developmental program, and a high degree of coordination among cells. Remarkably, all of these changes were previously thought to have occurred in the last 5075 million years. Here we estimate divergence times using a multigene data set with multiple fossil calibrations and use these estimates to infer the times of developmental changes relevant to the evolution of multicellularity. Our results show that Volvox diverged from unicellular ancestors at least 200 million years ago. Two key innovations resulting from an early cycle of cooperation, conflict and conflict mediation led to a rapid integration and radiation of multicellular forms in this group. This is the only ETI for which a detailed timeline has been established, but multilevel selection theory predicts that similar changes must have occurred during other ETIs.



Source Triassic origin and early radiation of multicellular volvocine algae


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 30, 2014)

Zmrzlina said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Zmrzlina said:
> ...



can you link me to the results of an experiment which replicated this confirming the idea?.....this is just a statement of an hypothesis.....


----------



## Zmrzlina (Jul 30, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



This is a weak argument and I am saying that as an Atheist.  It seems obvious to me that a unit of measurement that involves laying down your arm and measuring the circumference of a bowl is not going to result in an accurate enough measurement to account for Pi.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jul 30, 2014)

BillyP said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Ancient lion said:
> ...


Believe literally?  That, to you under your judgment, is what it takes to be a Christian?  Literal belief in Scripture?  Do you live by every Biblical tenet?  

If not, how do you reconcile the Amish with snake handling Pentacostals with Roman Catholics with Seventh Day Adventists with Presbyterians?  Are all of the above Christians too?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 30, 2014)

BillyP said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Ancient lion said:
> ...



And another fundie is heard from.


----------



## Ronin (Jul 31, 2014)

Wyatt Archaeological Research - Official Site of Ron Wyatt's Discoveries


THE LIGHT said:


> Ronin said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



No I'm a former Christian.  In fact the first aspect of my life.  My conclusions were not formed over night.  After years of research, history, science, other religions, basic observation of society, and traveling to the Holy Land several times, some with this manWyatt Archaeological Research - Official Site of Ron Wyatt's Discoveries have shaped my perspective.  The yearning to know more will always be there.

I was more content when I thought the Bible was reality.  I also remember being pissed at the person who told me Santa was fake.  He forced me to process the fact they were at every mall, that deer don't fly, and everything else associated.  

I wonder how many have investigated the history of the Bible outside the Bible itself.  The more you investigate the more you begin to see lies everywhere.

The Bible especially Genesis reads like a children's book.  When you say imagination.  . . I find it astonishing that excellent piece of literature has actually convinced people. . .adults that it is reality.  I would say each to their own, however is there any other source which has caused war, suffering, and divide than religion?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 31, 2014)

Ronin said:


> Wyatt Archaeological Research - Official Site of Ron Wyatt's Discoveries
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> ...



To that last question.... yes. Greed and the willingness of most human beings to follow orders.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jul 31, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > That mankind was 'created in the image of God' and therefore uniquely immune to the vagaries of evolution.
> ...


That is the reason for the arrogance about mankind.  Creationists think that the forces of evolution are not applicable to man because man was 'created'' separately.  The record of human development is a false record because some Bronze Age philosopher told you so.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 31, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



lol.....and yet to you there is a "record" of human evolution, even though no one has ever documented a single stage of it......can you even convince someone a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism?......

if it happened fifty million years ago, why didn't it happen again a million years ago, a thousand years ago.......last week Thursday?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 31, 2014)

@Nosmo

more questions about the "record of human development"......I'm curious....when humans moved through some of the earlier stages of development, were we more like earthworms or like those sea slug thingies.....


----------



## Nosmo King (Jul 31, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> @Nosmo
> 
> more questions about the "record of human development"......I'm curious....when humans moved through some of the earlier stages of development, were we more like earthworms or like those sea slug thingies.....









I don't see any worms.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 31, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



That record has been documented, and quite well.  But presenting that to you would be pointless and it is certainly easy enough to obtain with a simple web search.  You just would not accept it.  But that is ok, because the people who do this professionally do accept it and I have seen no reason to dispute them.  Whether you accept it or not changes nothing.

As to the last, it did happen last week Thursday.  It happens all the time.  But each change is miniscule.  Like water dripping in a cave, you don't see stalagmites and stalactites with the first drop, even though each drop does add its tiny bit.  This really is not that complicated a process and you are not unintelligent, so I don't buy that you can't understand it.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 31, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Tree species from the time of the dinosaurs can still be found because the K-T extinction only wiped out about 50% of plant species. The advantage seeds have is that they can survive catastrophic events where animals can't. Certainly the mix of trees changed but that is normal evolutionary behavior following environmental changes.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 31, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Too bad for you that there is plenty of documented evidence of human evolution!

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The following charts give a brief overview of several notable hominin fossil finds relating to human evolution beginning with the formation of the Hominini tribe in the late Miocene (roughly 6 million years ago).
> 
> As there are thousands of fossils, mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth with complete skulls and skeletons rare,[1] this overview is not meant to be complete, but does show some of the most important finds


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 31, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > @Nosmo
> ...



so you think the evolutionary development of humans began with the figure on the left?......interesting......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 31, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> As to the last, it did happen last week Thursday.  It happens all the time.  But each change is miniscule.



sorry, but changing from a single celled organism to a multicelled organism is NOT miniscule.....now, make up your mind....did it happen last Thursday or not.....has it ever happened again since it first happened and if so, which creatures out there are NOT related to  all the other creatures and how do we identify them?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 31, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Too bad for you that there is plenty of documented evidence of human evolution!








worms or sea slugs?.....


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 31, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > As to the last, it did happen last week Thursday.  It happens all the time.  But each change is miniscule.
> ...



Haven't I already explained that to you?

Oh right, you blew it off because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Nevermind!


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 31, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad for you that there is plenty of documented evidence of human evolution!
> ...



Non sequitur!


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 31, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


so that makes two posters who think that the precursor to humans dropped out of the sky without evolving from some earlier creature.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jul 31, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



I didn't need you to explain it....I needed you to prove it scientifically.....and admitting you can't do that doesn't fit YOUR agenda......


----------



## AtheistBuddah (Jul 31, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Really guy? Come back when you have more up your sleeve than just straw manning. That isn't an argument.


----------



## AtheistBuddah (Jul 31, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> AtheistBuddah said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



Again with the over simplification. Still your argument is flawed. You will accept that small changes can occur in organisms over small period of time but can't admit that those will eventually culminate in large changes over large periods of time. That position doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 31, 2014)

I hear a talk one time about the evolution of the eye and how it may have gone from no eye to a fully functional eye in as little as 250,000 generations. Let's take an animal like a super primitive proto-fish or something that has one new generation per year. In the space of a whopping quarter of a million years we go from blind to eye. 250,000 is blink in geologic terms. It wouldn't be surprising if it looked like beings with eyes just showed up one day with no fossilized precedents. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E]Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## AtheistBuddah (Jul 31, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> I hear a talk one time about the evolution of the eye and how it may have gone from no eye to a fully functional eye in as little as 250,000 generations. Let's take an animal like a super primitive proto-fish or something that has one new generation per year. In the space of a whopping quarter of a million years we go from blind to eye. 250,000 is blink in geologic terms. It wouldn't be surprising if it looked like beings with eyes just showed up one day with no fossilized precedents.
> 
> Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye - YouTube



Many people don't realize that the fossil record is by its very nature is imperfect and incomplete. Therefore there very well may be missing links in the evolutionary chain that will remain missing forever because no such organism became a fossil after it died.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 31, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> Has God talked directly to you?  No, I think you believe what someone who lived 2,000 years ago has told you in the Bible.  Even Reagan said "trust but verify".



Yes, directly through his word. 

And yes, His word can be both trusted and verified. 




alang1216 said:


> If you saw a short-necked, antelope-like animal wandering the forest a million years ago would you be able to accept that was the ancestor of the giraffe AND the antelope?  Just an off-the-top-of-head hypothetical but the idea being that ancestor was both a giraffe and an antelope.  No different from saying the ancestor of the monkey and of man was both.



I wasn't here a million years ago. Neither were you and neither was this world. You are just dodging the question. How did the giraffe evolve?


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 31, 2014)

You weren't there when the Bible was written. How can you be sure it's accurate?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 31, 2014)

AtheistBuddah said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > I hear a talk one time about the evolution of the eye and how it may have gone from no eye to a fully functional eye in as little as 250,000 generations. Let's take an animal like a super primitive proto-fish or something that has one new generation per year. In the space of a whopping quarter of a million years we go from blind to eye. 250,000 is blink in geologic terms. It wouldn't be surprising if it looked like beings with eyes just showed up one day with no fossilized precedents.
> ...



*Evolutionist:* We have mountains of evidence!!!

*Creationist:* Oh really? Where?

*Evolutionist:* just look below you!

*Creationist:* I am. All I see is fossils and bones. You do understand that when things die they leave bones behind and when they die quickly in the presence of a flood, they leave fossils behind. Those fossils and bones are representative of the organism that they came from. The fossils and bones that you and I see prove nothing but that something died and in the case of the fossils that something died and was buried quickly. So where is the evidence of evolutionism (i.e. transition between kinds)? You know... the transitional links.

*Evolutionist:* Well, um... you have to understand those are missing.

*Creationist:* I see, so there is mountains of evidence, but it is all missing.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 31, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> I hear a talk one time about the evolution of the eye and how it may have gone from no eye to a fully functional eye in as little as 250,000 generations. Let's take an animal like a super primitive proto-fish or something that has one new generation per year. In the space of a whopping quarter of a million years we go from blind to eye. 250,000 is blink in geologic terms. *It wouldn't be surprising if it looked like beings with eyes just showed up one day with no fossilized precedents*.
> 
> Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye - YouTube



So you are saying complex things can evolve rapidly or perhaps "just show up one day", but less complex things take millions upon millions of years.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 31, 2014)

Instead of blindly taking the talking points of anti-science types as gospel (pun definitely intended), why don't you take a couple classes or just sit down with an Evolutionary Biology textbook and see what we've actually discovered?


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 31, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > I hear a talk one time about the evolution of the eye and how it may have gone from no eye to a fully functional eye in as little as 250,000 generations. Let's take an animal like a super primitive proto-fish or something that has one new generation per year. In the space of a whopping quarter of a million years we go from blind to eye. 250,000 is blink in geologic terms. *It wouldn't be surprising if it looked like beings with eyes just showed up one day with no fossilized precedents*.
> ...



Rapid and slow are subjective. It takes as long as it takes. It isn't like there's a timetable or calendar life for forms to follow.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 1, 2014)

AtheistBuddah said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > AtheistBuddah said:
> ...



You are the one over simplifying. You started out by saying...



AtheistBuddah said:


> <snip>
> 
> It is* merely* the change of organisms over time. *That's it*.





AtheistBuddah said:


> Still your argument is flawed. You will accept that small changes can  occur in organisms over small period of time but can't admit that those  will eventually culminate in large changes over large periods of time.  That position doesn't make any sense.



It is not making any sense to you because evolutionism doesn't make any sense. But that is the "simple" analysis.

Your confusion comes from the fact that you are making two dependent assumptions which require circular reasoning to prove. Each time your belief in evolutionism blinds you to the simple truth.

First you assume everything had a common ancestor. Therefore, since all we have ever observed is changes within kinds and because those are slow; changes between kinds must be really really slow. Thus, the earth must be millions of years old. You then use this assumption to prove that the earth must be millions of years old because evolutionism would require it. If the earth were only a few thousand years old the changes that you assume would never add up.

In other words the age of the earth from an evolutionists point of view is a floating variable that changes from day to day in order to support their assumption that everything had a common ancestor.

This brings us back to my original point that you say that evolution is just "change over time", but what you really mean is that it is change over time with a common ancestor (a.k.a. a warm pond of gooo).


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 1, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Rapid and slow are relative to one another. They relate to one another whether there are units involved or not. You are saying that complex things evolved rapidly such that they "just showed up one day". While everything else took millions upon millions of years.

The only subjective calendar I know of is the one Charlie Darwin came up with by pulling numbers out of thin air.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 1, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Instead of blindly taking the talking points of anti-science types as gospel (pun definitely intended), why don't you take a couple classes or just sit down with an Evolutionary Biology textbook and see what we've actually discovered?



I have. The problem is I actually critically think through it. You blindly accept it as gospel.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 1, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Has God talked directly to you?  No, I think you believe what someone who lived 2,000 years ago has told you in the Bible.  Even Reagan said "trust but verify".
> ...



The giraffe question has been answered.  Now you answer one.  If plants and animals do not change over time, explain how it is possible to have chihuahuas and great danes.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 1, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > If you saw a short-necked, antelope-like animal wandering the forest a million years ago would you be able to accept that was the ancestor of the giraffe AND the antelope? Just an off-the-top-of-head hypothetical but the idea being that ancestor was both a giraffe and an antelope. No different from saying the ancestor of the monkey and of man was both.
> ...


 
There is abundant evidence that the earth is very old.  Either the earth is old or your God is deceiving you and can't be trusted.  Which I guess would explain why so many people trust what others have told them and not their own eyes.

Not sure what more information you're looking for on giraffe evolution please clarify.  If it is the biblical "kinds" then don't sweat it, there is no such thing.  Biology recognizes species but has no definition of "kind" and, in truth, I've never heard anyone be able to define what a biblical "kind" is.  Can you?

When it comes to the fossil record you should think of each fossil as a letter of the alphabet.  Each is pretty meaningless alone but put a few together and you have a word that conveys meaning.  Put enough together and you have a sentence that can put the words in context.  Put the sentences together and you have the story of life on earth.  You are welcome to remain illiterate but you should know that is how you sound to those who have taken the time and made the effort to read.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 1, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of blindly taking the talking points of anti-science types as gospel (pun definitely intended), why don't you take a couple classes or just sit down with an Evolutionary Biology textbook and see what we've actually discovered?
> ...



He's thought through it and concludes that an invisible superbeing made the world in 6 days because he needed the seventh day to rest.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 1, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> You weren't there when the Bible was written. How can you be sure it's accurate?



so lets get this straight......you question the accuracy of a text handed down from person to person for two thousand years, but believe without doubt a bone dug out of the ground in 1927 because a guy with a science degree told you to?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 1, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Instead of blindly taking the talking points of anti-science types as gospel (pun definitely intended), why don't you take a couple classes or just sit down with an Evolutionary Biology textbook and see what we've actually discovered?



after spending fifteen years arguing with evolutionists on the internet, I doubt there is anything about evolution that hasn't been raised at least ten times......I know what you've discovered and I know what you've ignored.....


----------



## Steven_R (Aug 1, 2014)

I can learn any field of science, from chemistry to physics to biology to genetics, and I could even lower myself to learn geology. I can run any experiment that has ever be run. I can examine all the scientific data that has ever been gathered. I can report my findings and have other people in the field look them over and publically smack me down if I step outside of the scientific process. I can trust but verify.

Or I can be handed a 3000 year old book and be told it's the truth because the book says so and if I don't just go with the book I'm burning forever. Oh, and I can't verify the truth the book claims.

Yeah, totally the same thing.


----------



## Steven_R (Aug 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of blindly taking the talking points of anti-science types as gospel (pun definitely intended), why don't you take a couple classes or just sit down with an Evolutionary Biology textbook and see what we've actually discovered?
> ...



Yet, debunking evolution is so easy you've written scientific papers and submitted them to journals like Nature, Science, PNAS, and Cell, right? Shit, anyone can do it,.

The first person to kill evolution is getting a dozen Nobel prizes and fame immortal. What are you waiting for? Drive that stake through Darwin's heart today! Chop, chop!

Or maybe, after 150 years of research and work it can't be debunked, not even by guys with access to the Internet. What would that mean?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 1, 2014)

Science has always scared the hell out of the religious crazies.
Gives them less control over their sheeple.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 1, 2014)

My Christian faith is so strong nothing science attacks it.
Evolution supports my faith.
One only has to go take Biology 101 at their local community college and see evolution is real.
Funny thing was a Methodist Sunday School teacher taught my freshman Biology 101 class in 1973!


----------



## Idadunno (Aug 1, 2014)

Evolution can be proven scientifically. Humans evolve over time--we adapt to our environment just like animals do (where do you think white people came from). We also evolve from choices we make. If you marry your first cousin or sibling, your children will have a high risk of being born with a mental disorder. Too closely related DNA markers work themselves into a tizzy over which is going to turn on or off which gene. That is why there was so much mental and physical disorders in monarchical families throughout history. Drug usage (legal and illegal) also change genetic markers and can result in mental and physical disorders. 
Where I question science on evolution is the monkey to man theory. Granted, an animal can evolve into a subspecies without the original species becoming extinct, but the subspecies would be able to procreate with the original species. Humans can have sex with a chimp but they cannot produce babies.
I created a diva fruit fly in Biology and the entire subspecies died. She was genetically created to look hot (for a fruit fly)  but the genetics could not sustain the species. I killed off entire populations of birds too. Too many birds separated from their group by an act of nature could not evolve quickly enough. When nature changed, their diet changed--they no longer had access to what they normally consumed. Slow evolution of a smaller population to adapt to a diet change created a new subspecies. It is interesting that a subspecies that evolves past the original then becomes a new species--it can no longer mate with its ancestor. Biology is seriously cool.


----------



## konradv (Aug 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > You weren't there when the Bible was written. How can you be sure it's accurate?
> ...



It's not "a bone" or "a guy", it's many, many of each.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 1, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> I can learn any field of science, from chemistry to physics to biology to genetics, and I could even lower myself to learn geology. I can run any experiment that has ever be run. I can examine all the scientific data that has ever been gathered. I can report my findings and have other people in the field look them over and publically smack me down if I step outside of the scientific process. I can trust but verify.



you can trust every other person who does not believe in God to verify your faith choices......however, to pretend they are proven by science is nothing more than wind.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 1, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



you mean what would it mean if everyone admitted there is no real evidence that human beings evolved from single celled organisms?.......it would mean we finally have some honest scientists......


----------



## BillyP (Aug 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Says the guy who believes in an invisible super being that lives in another dimension.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 1, 2014)

Idadunno said:


> Evolution can be proven scientifically.



if you think you can scientifically prove that humans evolved from single celled organisms then do so or stop flapping your lips....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 1, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



so if I can get many, many guys to say God created the heavens and the earth, do I win?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 1, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



yes.....you're finally catching on.......at least I am honest about my faith choices.......


----------



## BillyP (Aug 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



At least you admit that you live in a fantasy world.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> you mean what would it mean if everyone admitted there is no real evidence that human beings evolved from single celled organisms?.......it would mean we finally have some honest scientists......


 
There is abundant evidence, what is lacking is an experiment or a time machine.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 1, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > you mean what would it mean if everyone admitted there is no real evidence that human beings evolved from single celled organisms?.......it would mean we finally have some honest scientists......
> ...



you realize Christians say the exact same thing to you about God......


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



I'm not such a fool as to not look at their evidence.  Who wouldn't want a heavenly father looking out for me and offering me eternal life.  Alas, I just couldn't bring myself to ignore convincing evidence to the contrary.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 1, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



I would look at your evidence if you showed me some.....I've been asking for someone to show me evidence a single celled organism evolved into a multicelled organism since January......


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 1, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!
> 
> I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.
> 
> ...



Who do you think you are talking to?

Most people are not as stupid and ignorant now as they were back in the first century AD. 

Your scam is losing traction.  

Evolution is just a small part of science.

The lies of religion have not gotten any more believable.


----------



## Steven_R (Aug 2, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Here you go. http://www-eve.ucdavis.edu/grosberg/Grosberg pdf papers/2007 Grosberg & Strathmann.AREES.pdf

From the paper: 





> Here, we focus on the evolutionary transition from unicellular to multicellular
> organization. The first evidence of this transition comes from fossils of prokaryotic
> filamentous and mat-forming Cyanobacteria-like organisms, dating back 3 to 3.5 billion
> years (Knoll 2003, Schopf 1993), with signs of cell differentiation more than 2
> billion years ago (Tomitani et al. 2006).



and



> *History has often repeated itself: Multicellular organisms independently originated
> at least 25 times from unicellular ancestors *(Figure 1) (Bonner 1998, 2000;
> Buss 1987; Carroll 2001; Cavalier-Smith 1991; Kaiser 2001; Maynard Smith &
> Szathm´ary 1995; Medina et al. 2003). Multicellularity appears to have originated
> ...


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 2, 2014)

BillyP said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



As opposed to believing we came from a rock. 

Even Richard Dawkins admits that a "superbeing" is a plausible explanation. He just hates the God of the Bible. 

As to the "invisible" nature of God. It is actually quite scientific that he would be invisible to us since he resides outside our time dimension. Even scientists understand that there are more than just our 4 perceivable dimensions.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 2, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Science has always scared the hell out of the religious crazies.
> Gives them less control over their sheeple.



I agree.




Gadawg73 said:


> My Christian faith is so strong nothing science attacks it.
> *Evolution supports my faith.*
> One only has to go take Biology 101 at their local community college and see evolution is real.
> Funny thing was a Methodist Sunday School teacher taught my freshman Biology 101 class in 1973!



Evolutionism is a religion and it does take faith. Way to much faith for me.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 2, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



You have not presented any evidence to my knowledge. On the contrary, the Creation screams out the work of a Creator:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 
(Romans 1:20)




> Not sure *what more* information you're looking for on giraffe evolution please clarify.  If it is the biblical "kinds" then don't sweat it, there is no such thing.  Biology recognizes species but has no definition of "kind" and, in truth, I've never heard anyone be able to define what a biblical "kind" is.  Can you?


You haven't given me any information. You are the one claiming everything evolved from a common ancestor. I want you to explain how. And in specific, how the giraffe evolved from a non giraffe.




> When it comes to the fossil record you should think of each fossil as a letter of the alphabet.  Each is pretty meaningless alone but put a few together and you have a word that conveys meaning.  Put enough together and you have a sentence that can put the words in context.  Put the sentences together and you have the story of life on earth.  You are welcome to remain illiterate but you should know that is how you sound to those who have taken the time and made the effort to read.


I understand that you are just reading these phrases from your highschool textbook, but have no idea what you are really saying. That works nice in a school textbook full of pretty pictures, but has nothing to do with the real world. Please, take some time to actually critically think about what you are reading.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 2, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



No it has not been answered.

And no, I never claimed plants and animals don't change over time.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 2, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



The only scientific part about god being invisible is because there's zero scientific proof that your god exists.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 2, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



You've been given plenty of evidence but you demand proof.  As the saying goes, "if you want proof talk to a mathamatician or a distiller".  

Evidence for an old earth would be the universe itself.  If the universe is no more than a few thousand years we should be unable to see any galaxies since they are millions of light years away.  There is plenty of additional evidence for an old earth from geology, biology, and physics to name a few.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 2, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> > When it comes to the fossil record you should think of each fossil as a letter of the alphabet.  Each is pretty meaningless alone but put a few together and you have a word that conveys meaning.  Put enough together and you have a sentence that can put the words in context.  Put the sentences together and you have the story of life on earth.  You are welcome to remain illiterate but you should know that is how you sound to those who have taken the time and made the effort to read.
> 
> 
> I understand that you are just reading these phrases from your highschool textbook, but have no idea what you are really saying. That works nice in a school textbook full of pretty pictures, but has nothing to do with the real world. Please, take some time to actually critically think about what you are reading.



I guess I'm honored that you think this came from a textbook but it was not a cut and paste.  The words and concepts are mine so I did think about them.  Did you?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 2, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> > Not sure *what more* information you're looking for on giraffe evolution please clarify.  If it is the biblical "kinds" then don't sweat it, there is no such thing.  Biology recognizes species but has no definition of "kind" and, in truth, I've never heard anyone be able to define what a biblical "kind" is.  Can you?
> 
> 
> You haven't given me any information. You are the one claiming everything evolved from a common ancestor. I want you to explain how. And in specific, how the giraffe evolved from a non giraffe.



I sense this is not as simple a question as it appears but here's the classic theory:

"Natural selection is often called the most unique part of Darwin's theory.  Competition, also called the struggle for life, had been thought of as a reason  that a given species might succeed or go extinct, but Darwin extended the  understanding to change _within a species._  To continue the example of  giraffes: when a giraffe is born with a longer neck than its fellows, it gains  an advantage because it is able to reach more food.  The long-neck giraffe is  therefore stronger, lives longer, and more likely to have offspring.  These  offspring are born with the same long neck as their parent, though some might  have even longer necks.  The cycle continues. The theory of natural selection  depends on five postulates:  


Individuals are variable.
Some variations are passed down.
More offspring are produced than can survive.
Survival and reproduction are not random.
The history of earth is long."


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 2, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



nice theory....now, how about the evidence.....


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 2, 2014)

How does science attack Christianity?
Why does science bother folks?


----------



## Steven_R (Aug 2, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Don't ever change.


----------



## Chuckt (Aug 2, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> How does science attack Christianity?
> Why does science bother folks?



Science doesn't attack Christianity.
False science attacks Christianity.


----------



## Steven_R (Aug 2, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> How does science attack Christianity?
> Why does science bother folks?



Science forces people to ask the hard philosophical questions and presents a threat to the faith of some people by pointing out how their religious book might be factually wrong. They're confronted with a dilemma: "if my book is wrong about X, what else might it be wrong about? What if it's all wrong? Then what?"


----------



## Chuckt (Aug 2, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > How does science attack Christianity?
> ...



Just like creation science confronts atheists with a delemma.  "If my atheism is challenged, I have to attack Christians."


----------



## Steven_R (Aug 2, 2014)

If evolution is wrong, then it's wrong and the scientific community will adapt to it. We did the same thing after Michelson-Morley invalidated decades of research. Show how evolution isn't correct and the scientific community will simply have no choice but to acknowledge it. You might have to work a bit to get people to listen, but it's that way with any new scientific concept.

If the Bible is wrong about one thing, is it wrong about all things? If it gets this story wrong, maybe none of it is right. Then what?


----------



## Chuckt (Aug 2, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> If evolution is wrong, then it's wrong and the scientific community will adapt to it. We did the same thing after Michelson-Morley invalidated decades of research. Show how evolution isn't correct and the scientific community will simply have no choice but to acknowledge it. You might have to work a bit to get people to listen, but it's that way with any new scientific concept.
> 
> If the Bible is wrong about one thing, is it wrong about all things? If it gets this story wrong, maybe none of it is right. Then what?



What do computers do when they aren't doing anything?  They start running their screen saver.  Your bias is your screen saver.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 2, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



PMP just provided evidence that he never read the link. If he had he would have come across the references to the fossil evidence.

So the logical deduction from this thread is that PMP lacks the fundamental honesty and integrity necessary to engage in any debate involving evolution, religion, ethics and morality. 

That wraps this one up folks! Have a nice day.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 2, 2014)

Chuckt said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...





"Creation science" was exposed as a fraud in the courts by a conservative judge and the SCOTUS.

Therefore there is no dilemma for atheists. It is only those who still swallow the "creation science" canards who have a problem. 

Atheists just  and walk away.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 2, 2014)

Chuckt said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > How does science attack Christianity?
> ...



You mean false religion attacks science.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 2, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Conservative Bush appointed Judge Johnson scolded the creationists, their lawyers and many of their witnesses for openly telling lies in court that were the direct opposite of what they testified to in their depositions.
The Dover case clearly illustrated the fraud, manipulation and outright lies the creation movement used, uses and continues to use in their literature, presentations and in the Dover case in court.
The ID and Creation movement is an embarrassment to the Christian community that has strong faith not bothered by science and truth.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 2, 2014)

I have no real problem with people intentionally remaining ignorant about science. Frankly, it is kind of an ego trip for me to know that there are so  many people whose intellect is beneath mine. I say that, even though I am not a scientist. However, I am a rational human being with common sense, and even that puts me in rarified territory.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 2, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > How does science attack Christianity?
> ...



if science is wrong about life crawling out of a mud puddle, what else might science be wrong about?........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 2, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



this from someone who actually didn't read it......paste me the sentence that you believe provides the evidence that this theoretical scenario actually occurred?.....maybe something beyond "this is what it looks like and we think its true"......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 2, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



true....he should have said the idiots who believe false science attack Christianity......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 2, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> If evolution is wrong, then it's wrong and the scientific community will adapt to it.



not if everyone agrees that evidence isn't necessary.......then you just get generations of ignorant people like those posting here.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 2, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> I have no real problem with people intentionally remaining ignorant about science.



even when you're one of them?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 2, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> The Dover case clearly illustrated the fraud



"we don't need the scientific method, we have a judge!".......


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 2, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Semantic squirming about the exact dating is all you have now?  

On the plus side you just proved that I am 100% right about your lack of honesty and integrity.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 2, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Chuckt said:
> ...



The believers of evolution have no problem with you and your religious beliefs.
The problem starts when you claim your beliefs are science.
Because they aren't.
NO ONE can disprove my religious beliefs and 
NO ONE can prove my religious beliefs.
Because they are beliefs and beliefs are never science.
Only those with shallow religious beliefs and faith are "attacked" by science.
It would be those people who lack true faith and convictions in their religious beliefs that attack science.
Fine with me but when you come and want the schools to teach beliefs instead of science we will not allow it.
Something about the Constitution.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 2, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The Dover case clearly illustrated the fraud
> ...



Creationism is a belief and not science.
You prove my point, thank you. 
In the Dover case the scientific method was presented from A-Z on evolution and how that testing proved ID was nothing more than repackaged creationism.

You need to get up to speed on the facts as you are far behind.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 2, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



and I just proved you couldn't find that sentence......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 2, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



???...when has that ever happened?....




> Fine with me but when you come and want the schools to teach beliefs instead of science we will not allow it.


how do you feel about schools teaching abiogenesis or macro evolution as science?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 2, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> You need to get up to speed on the facts as you are far behind.



/sigh....another fucking idiot who claims there are facts but won't prove it.....

the case provided A-Z on claims accepted irregardless of the lack of proof......I will admit your religion has overcome mine when it comes to the origin of life and humanity......I won't acknowledge its anything other than your religion until you provide some proof.......I'm an agnostic when it comes to abiogenesis.....


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 2, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...




Your beliefs don't change what is true and what isn't. Truth is absolute. 

The constitution says nothing about teaching science in classrooms.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 3, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Okay. There is a difference of terms that you are using. You just switched from talking about the age of the earth to the age of the universe. The age of the universe could very well be "several billion" years old based on time dilation and expansion factors, yet still have been created in 7 literal days. Moreover, speaking of physics, universal heat death utterly shreds the concept of evolution.

You keep saying that there is "plenty" of evidence but you have not presented it.


----------



## Steven_R (Aug 3, 2014)

> Moreover, speaking of physics, universal heat death utterly shreds the concept of evolution.



That isn't what the Second Law of Thermodynamics states. 

Let me google that for you


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 3, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



Since evolution is just the name applied to the process of animals and plants changing over time and you seem to be saying you don't deny that process is taking place, what exactly is your concern?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 3, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Never said it did.
It prohibits selling one religion over another in the classrooms.
And allows science to be taught.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 3, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not such a fool as to not look at their evidence. Who wouldn't want a heavenly father looking out for me and offering me eternal life. Alas, I just couldn't bring myself to ignore convincing evidence to the contrary.
> ...



There are three theories, one of which is the colonial theory proposed by Haeckel in 1874. This theory claims that the symbiosis of many organisms of the same species led to a multicellular organism. The advantage of the Colonial Theory hypothesis is that it has been seen to occur independently in 16 different protoctistan phyla. For instance, *during food shortages the amoeba **Dictyostelium** groups together in a colony that moves as one to a new location. Some of these amoeba then slightly differentiate from each other.* Other examples of colonial organisation in protista are Volvocaceae, such as Eudorina and Volvox, the latter of which consists of up to 50050,000 cells (depending on the species), only a fraction of which reproduce.[20]  (Multicellular organism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 3, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



clusters of single celled organisms that reproduce more single celled organisms that form clusters.....sorry, you aren't the first to try that subterfuge....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 3, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Lab yeast make evolutionary leap to multicellularity - life - 23 June 2011 - New Scientist


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 3, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



You've lost me now (I'm not a physicist).  Please explain how time dilation or expansion factors can cause billions of years to be 7 literal days (and exactly what do you mean by a "day"?).  I also don't see how universal heat death utterly shreds the concept of evolution.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 3, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



The lack of honesty and integrity is still on display.

How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones

From one cell to many: How did multicellularity evolve? -- ScienceDaily


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 3, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



You asked for *EVIDENCE *of the jump from single cell critters to multi-celled critters.  I think single cell acting like multi-cellular animal shows that it is possible for single cells to cooperate to enhance their survival.  I think it is a very small step from cells occasionally cooperating to cells *ALWAYS* cooperating.  

Assuming you don't accept this please explain how we are different.  We start with a single cell that forms clusters that in turn reproduces by creating another single cell that forms clusters.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 3, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



from your link....


> In some ways, the snowflakes do behave as if they are multicellular.



but.....they aren't......that's why it says "as if"......you also aren't the first to cite this article.....another loser.....try again.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 3, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



I agree....when are you going to come clean?.....all you have to do is provide scientific evidence of your beliefs.......you claim its science, why can't you do that?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 3, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



that's nice....if I ever ask you to prove that single celled organisms can cooperate you'll have a head start.....now, back to showing that single celled organisms actually evolved into multicelled organisms.......I am waiting.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 3, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



if you're talking about the human reproductive system, you aren't the first to try that argument either.....unfortunately that is reproduction, not evolution.....the zygote is not a different species from a fetus.....try again.......


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 3, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



You have proven yourself to be unworthy of my time and attention on multiple counts. 

Edit Ignore List *click* Add a Member to your List... "PostmodernProph" [Okay] *click*


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 3, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



hardly my loss.....I've had people like you run away from arguments for years.....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 3, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


As an aside they mention the snowflake thing. The yeast thing is a fact that even you can't deny plausibly so you attack the anecdote. You lose.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 3, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



????....you didn't read your own link?.....the "snowflake thing" wasn't an aside, it was the "yeast thing".....


> Sure enough, within 60 days - about 350 generations - every one of their 10 culture lines had evolved a clumped, "snowflake" form.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 4, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > How does science attack Christianity?
> ...



BINGO!

The exact reason why you are trying to disprove creation and put it out of your conscience. After all the word conscience comes from the prefix "con" which means with and the root word "science". Put together they mean with science. You are given a conscience by the creator that convicts you of the existence of a Creator. Evolution is just a means of finding something that can block common sense. 

The Bible predicts all of this occurring as a result of those who reject Jesus as their LORD.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(Romans 1:21)

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
(Romans 1:23)

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
(Romans 1:24)

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
(Romans 1:25)




Vandalshandle said:


> I have no real problem with people intentionally remaining ignorant about science. Frankly, it is kind of an ego trip for me to know that there are so many people whose intellect is beneath mine. I say that, even though I am not a scientist. However, I am a rational human being with common sense, and even that puts me in rarified territory.



Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
(Romans 1:22)


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 4, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> That isn't what the Second Law of Thermodynamics states.
> 
> Let me google that for you



You are in denial. 

In thermodynamics everything is moving towards equilibrium. Once all energy reaches that state, no more work can be done. That includes moving your fingers to type the words "Let me google that for you".

On the other hand there is the recent theory by scientist speculating that the universe would collapse in on itself with a "big flash" (or bang) thereby ending in fire. This clearly lines up with the prophecy given by the apostle Peter in 2Peter 3:10.

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 
(2 Peter 3:10)


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 4, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > > Not sure what more information you're looking for on giraffe evolution please clarify. If it is the biblical "kinds" then don't sweat it, there is no such thing. Biology recognizes species but has no definition of "kind" and, in truth, I've never heard anyone be able to define what a biblical "kind" is. Can you?
> ...



You keep repeating the same thing over and over, yet nowhere do you answer the question. I am not asking why some giraffes have shorter necks than others. I want you to explain how the giraffe evolved from a non giraffe.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 4, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> Since evolution is just the name applied to the process of animals and plants changing over time and you seem to be saying you don't deny that process is taking place, what exactly is your concern?




Because evolution and Evolutionism are two different things. Evolution as in adaptation is observable while Evolutionism has no observable proof.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 4, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Would you mind pointing out where it says that?

In 1792, the US Congress recommended and approved the use of the Holy Bible for use in all schools.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 4, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Since evolution is just the name applied to the process of animals and plants changing over time and you seem to be saying you don't deny that process is taking place, what exactly is your concern?
> ...



Applying the basic rules of English here, Evolutionism would be the belief in evolution.  So what you are saying is that while evolution is observable, the belief in evolution is not.  I can only respond that you have been conversing with a lot of people who say they believe evolution to be a reality, what more observation do you require?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
I provided *evidence* that single celled organisms can *BECOME* a multicelled organism under the right circumstances.  How is that NOT evidence of the transition you requested?  If you want experimental proof you're out of luck.  

What are multicelled organisms except single celled organisms cooperating?  Maybe if you would say exactly what kind of evidence you would accept I might be able to provide it.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
An ameoba can divide into many ameoba and then they can all operate as a single unit.  One individual, one species.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 4, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> You keep repeating the same thing over and over, yet nowhere do you answer the question. I am not asking why some giraffes have shorter necks than others. I want you to explain how the giraffe evolved from a non giraffe.


 
I don't know exactly how but I could provide a scenario that created other species, will that do?

Imagine the short-necked, short-legged, forest-dwelling ancestor of the giraffe inhabiting an valley that, due to volcanic eruptions becomes isolated from the others of its kind.  The valley dries out and the animals that are taller can reach more food and survive more often.  Over thousands of years the process continues until that short-necked, short-legged, forest-dwelling ancestor of the giraffe has become the giraffe we know today.  Now the volcano erodes and once-isolated giraffe population spreads out and encounters their ancestors, still short-necked, short-legged, and forest-dwelling.  The two population will not interbreed and are now two distinct species.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 4, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> I provided *evidence* that single celled organisms can *BECOME* a multicelled organism under the right circumstances.  How is that NOT evidence of the transition you requested?  If you want experimental proof you're out of luck.
> 
> What are multicelled organisms except single celled organisms cooperating?  Maybe if you would say exactly what kind of evidence you would accept I might be able to provide it.



a multicelled organism is a single creature which reproduces by forming the same multicelled organism......it isn't a cluster of single celled organisms, which if one dies, permits another single celled organism to join the cluster to replace it......

to say that single celled organisms CAN BECOME multicelled organisms is your theory.....the scientific method says that one can either prove or falsify a theory by experimentation.......secularists who favor macro evolution argue that you can prove a theory by simply pretending they have done so......that is not science.......if you wish to believe that to be the case feel free to do so......but do not pretend science has anything to do with it......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 4, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



no....when an amoeba divides into many amoeba they operate as many amoeba......many individuals, one species.....


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > I provided *evidence* that single celled organisms can *BECOME* a multicelled organism under the right circumstances. How is that NOT evidence of the transition you requested? If you want experimental proof you're out of luck.
> ...


 
No, I provided evidence that single celled organisms CAN BECOME multicelled organisms.  My theory is that it first happened millions of years ago.

No, the scientific method does NOT say that one can prove a theory by experimentation.  An experiment might disprove a theory but, if successful, it is only another piece of evidence in favor of the theory.

If I ever commit a crime I'd certainly want you on my jury.  The prosecuction might provide lots of evidence as to my guilt but you'd never convict without experimental proof.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> no....when an amoeba divides into many amoeba they operate as many amoeba......many individuals, one species.....


 
If I could show you an amoeba that divide into many amoeba that remain connected as a colony would that satisfy you?

You're just grasping at symantic straws.  When a human egg cell divides into many human cells they operate as many individual cells.  Each reproducing, eating, and eliminating waste.  Many individual cells, one, multi-celluar organism of one species.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 4, 2014)

When I take a dump, one turd divides into billions of shitsmell molecules which seem to have a life of their own as a group and target your nasal passages. Does THAT satisfy you?


----------



## Steven_R (Aug 4, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> The exact reason why you are trying to disprove creation and put it out of your conscience. After all the word conscience comes from the prefix "con" which means with and the root word "science". Put together they mean with science. You are given a conscience by the creator that convicts you of the existence of a Creator. Evolution is just a means of finding something that can block common sense.
> (Romans 1:22)



You have it backwards. I'm not trying to disprove Creation or the existence of any God(s). I'm trying to understand how the natural world functions. The problem comes when there's a scientific finding that doesn't mesh with someone's holy book. Of course, the holy book can't possibly be wrong or not holy or not literal, so we end up with all the mental gymnastics from your crowd about how the science is wrong, or the passage isn't to be taken literally this time, or how if you squint your eyes and turn your heard just right the vague meaning of a passage written for Bronze Age goat herders is exactly what the findings of particle astrophysicists are finding.


----------



## Steven_R (Aug 4, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > That isn't what the Second Law of Thermodynamics states.
> ...



Want to know how I know you've never taken Physics II or Thermodynamics?

Also, the Big Crunch is no longer the prevailing hypothesis for the end of the universe. Right now we're thinking continual expansion until we get to the Heat Death of the universe in 10^10^56 years.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 4, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



uh no....you raised the claim that they could.....no one has provided any evidence so far.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 4, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > no....when an amoeba divides into many amoeba they operate as many amoeba......many individuals, one species.....
> ...



of course not....a colony of single celled organisms is not a multicelled organism......


----------



## BillyP (Aug 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Multicellular organism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 4, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> You're just grasping at symantic straws.  When a human egg cell divides into many human cells they operate as many individual cells.  Each reproducing, eating, and eliminating waste.  Many individual cells, one, multi-celluar organism of one species.



the difference between a zygote growing into a fetus and eventually into an adult human is more than just a symantic difference from the evolution of one species into another.....


----------



## Steven_R (Aug 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Ever hear of a jellyfish?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 4, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



yes.....do you think one will someday evolve into a muticellular organism?....


----------



## Steven_R (Aug 4, 2014)

> a colony of single celled organisms is not a multicelled organism......



Jellyfish are. 

Be more specific in your argument.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 4, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> > a colony of single celled organisms is not a multicelled organism......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



some are, some aren't........has one ever evolved into the other in a lab experiment?.....seems like a prime opportunity for you to obtain the proof you are lacking.....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > > a colony of single celled organisms is not a multicelled organism......
> ...



I used to eat meat but my thinking evolved over time and now I'm a vegetarian. Then we had 2 children who are both vegetarians. That's an evolution towards a healthier lifestyle, and now our branch of our family trees has changed/mutated/evolved into vegetarians. Pretty simple to understand really.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
I give up.  It's like talking to a child with his fingers in his ears who's yelling "I CAN'T HEAR YOU".


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > You're just grasping at symantic straws. When a human egg cell divides into many human cells they operate as many individual cells. Each reproducing, eating, and eliminating waste. Many individual cells, one, multi-celluar organism of one species.
> ...


 
Please explain the difference from the amoeba described below:



> There are three theories, one of which is the colonial theory proposed by Haeckel in 1874. This theory claims that the symbiosis of many organisms of the same species led to a multicellular organism. The advantage of the Colonial Theory hypothesis is that it has been seen to occur independently in 16 different protoctistan phyla. For instance, *during food shortages the amoeba **Dictyostelium** groups together in a colony that moves as one to a new location. Some of these amoeba then slightly differentiate from each other.* Other examples of colonial organisation in protista are Volvocaceae, such as Eudorina and Volvox, the latter of which consists of up to 50050,000 cells (depending on the species), only a fraction of which reproduce.[20] (Multicellular organism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


 
Remember it is you who claim this is the evolution of one species into another not me.  Something quite incorrect since they are single and mult-celled forms of the same species.  Not unlike an egg and an adult.


----------



## pinqy (Aug 4, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



An important thing to remember too, in the context of "why don't we see it happening now," is that since there are already multi-cellular organisms, that have been around a long time, the older ones will be more efficient and out-compete developing multi-cellular organisms. Ditto newly formed life.....Even if there are conditions for new life to form (which I doubt) they would never last long.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 4, 2014)

MOST ALL evangelical colleges and universities teach evolution. 
Sooner than later ignorance will be wiped out. 
The Bible is a great book and tells us what we need to know.
But the Bible does not tell us everything. 
Micromanaging one's faith only leads to a weaker one.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 4, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



lol.....the species of BillyPs.....doomed to extinction.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 4, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



the difference is obvious.....one of your colonies does not mate with another colony and produce a new colony.....instead a different bunch of individuals begin to cluster together.......



> Remember it is you who claim this is the evolution of one species into another not me.  Something quite incorrect since they are single and mult-celled forms of the same species.  Not unlike an egg and an adult.



???....I made no such claim....in fact, I specifically stated it was NOT evidence of a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism......it is a cluster of single celled organisms remaining single celled organisms.....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



I just proved evolution for you. Now, is there anything else?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 4, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



yes, wipe that grin off your face and try again without the jokes....unless of course you previously were single celled organisms.....


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
How does sexual verses asexual reproduction matter?  The egg was fertilized and then began to divide while a single celled animal asexually divides.  Same difference.  Sexual reproduction is not required for multi-celled organisms.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



I already proved that single cell crap with a link. Anything else?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> > Remember it is you who claim this is the evolution of one species into another not me. Something quite incorrect since they are single and mult-celled forms of the same species. Not unlike an egg and an adult.
> 
> 
> 
> ???....I made no such claim....in fact, I specifically stated it was NOT evidence of a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism......it is a cluster of single celled organisms remaining single celled organisms.....


 
This ameboa is both single celled AND multi-celled.  It is multi-celled since in it's colonial form, the member cells differentiate while joined.  They don't just live near each other they interact with each other.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 4, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



your clusters don't reproduce multicelled organisms either sexually or asexually.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 4, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



your link did nothing except outline the theory.....I'm looking for evidence that either supports or falsifies the theory.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 4, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > > Remember it is you who claim this is the evolution of one species into another not me. Something quite incorrect since they are single and mult-celled forms of the same species. Not unlike an egg and an adult.
> ...



no.....they are still single celled.....they are not a single organism, they are a cluster of, for example, 64 separate organisms.....when one dies, it just gets replaced by the next single celled organism that comes along.....when a multicelled organism dies, its dead......


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Your skin cells are constantly dying and being replaced.  

Having trouble admitting you have gone out on a limb and now have no where to escape to?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Don't buy it.  A distinction without a difference.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 4, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



my skin cells are not a separate organism from the rest of my body.....the algae cells are separate organisms from the rest of the cluster.....I don't need to escape....I'm winning.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 4, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



obviously its a difference.....your clusters don't reproduce themselves at all......single celled organisms reproducing single celled organisms are not multicellular organisms......


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 4, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Evolutionism = the belief that every living thing had a common ancestor and that common ancestor came from a warm pond of goo. AKA macro-evolution or from the goo to the zoo to you. This cannot and has never been observed. This is a religion. 

Evolution (or micro-evolution) = the adaptation of plants and animals to their surrounding environment. This can be observed. This is science.

Hope this clarifies.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 5, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > The exact reason why you are trying to disprove creation and put it out of your conscience. After all the word conscience comes from the prefix "con" which means with and the root word "science". Put together they mean with science. You are given a conscience by the creator that convicts you of the existence of a Creator. Evolution is just a means of finding something that can block common sense.
> ...



I don't think science is wrong. I LOVE science. It is your superstitious belief in the unproven and unobservable pseudo science of macro-evolution that I have a problem with.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 5, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> MOST ALL evangelical colleges and universities teach evolution.



Once again. Just because it is taught in a university doesn't mean that it is true.




Gadawg73 said:


> Sooner than later ignorance will be wiped out.



Yes, this is true. Jesus will be returning soon and with his return, the foolish idea of evolutionism will be no longer. Actually, prior to his return there will be a period of time called the Great Tribulation in which those who reject Christ will no longer be athiests or evolutionists, but will worship god. No, it won't be the God of the Bible that you worship. It will be a man indwelt by Satan who will claim to be God. 




Gadawg73 said:


> The Bible is a great book and tells us what we need to know.



I agree.




Gadawg73 said:


> But the Bible does not tell us everything.



True. It does not tell us what flavors of m&m's will be sold next year. That is correct.




Gadawg73 said:


> Micromanaging one's faith only leads to a weaker one.



I agree. Don't try to micromanage your faith. Put your trust in Jesus and his truth will set you free.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 5, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



But you are still human beings. 

I hope.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 5, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Oh wait. don't tell me.

How does he know....

Oh yeah, that's right. Anyone who reads the Bible and believes it to be true is excluded from the evolutionist science club. Well, that's okay with me. Most scientists that we now believe to have held the correct views were mocked and ridiculed and excluded from the science clubs of their day because they held views that were not "mainstream". Truth is absolute.

So, you may save the explanation of why you think you know but don't.




> Also, the Big Crunch is no longer the prevailing hypothesis for the end of the universe. Right now we're thinking continual expansion until we get to the Heat Death of the universe in 10^10^56 years.


The "prevailing" hypothesis is the one that I first mentioned which is heat death. So yes, that is correct. However, the prevailing planetary model used to be that the earth was at the center of the universe. We now know that isn't true.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 5, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > You keep repeating the same thing over and over, yet nowhere do you answer the question. I am not asking why some giraffes have shorter necks than others. I want you to explain how the giraffe evolved from a non giraffe.
> ...



Each time you end up starting with a giraffe and telling me how it adapted to its environment. You have not yet explained how it evolved from a non giraffe.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 5, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



Ahhh....  I see the problem.  Evolutionism is the belief in the theory of evolution, which deals with how plants and animals change over time.  You see how that works?  The "ism" in the word refers to the root.  

Macroevolution refers to large trends over millions of years.  The transition from algae to flowering plants, for example.  While seen on a far larger scale, it is still evolution.  

What you are talking about is abiogenesis.  It helps if you get your words right, especially if you want to act snooty about it.

I would point out that while you could say there is no direct observable evidence for this, that does not make it religion.  No more so than string theory is religion.  It seems you see science as a source for answers and reject it if you don't get what you want.  Science is a process and typically provides more questions than answers.  So you begin with the observable evidence - evolution - and hypothesize about how it began.  Then you start to test. If the testing doesn't fit the hypothesis, then you modify the hypothesis and test again.  You don't assume the test is wrong because it doesn't fit the hypothesis, which is what you would do in religion.

Science - consider the possibilities, test, modify assumptions, test, modify assumptions, test.....
Religion - pick the answer you want and don't question.
See the difference?

These are two different things and there is no conflict between them.  Unless, of course, a particular religious belief expects the universe to act in a manner it does not.  In which case, the religious belief is wrong.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 5, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


 
When I said "short-necked, short-legged, forest-dwelling ancestor of the giraffe" how did you understand that to be a giraffe?

This is how it might have looked. Is this a giraffe to you? It wouldn't interbreed with a modern giraffe and would be considered a separate species.






If you object to the biological definition of a species please share yours.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 5, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
Obviously its a difference because your faith says it has to be.  I'm not surprised you refuse to see the transitional nature of this organism.  Well you've been presented evidence whether you choose to admit it or not.  And that is alot more than any creationist has ever been able to provide to me.


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 5, 2014)

you do realize you are nothing but a false sayer.....


you should be getting ready for the end of the world right?

matthew 24: 36

you are a charlton at best


----------



## RodISHI (Aug 5, 2014)

strollingbones said:


> you do realize you are nothing but a false sayer.....
> 
> 
> you should be getting ready for the end of the world right?
> ...



Bones are you still pestering the Christians?

We are all preparing for the end of this world. Each may have a different description or definition of which world we are speaking about though.


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 5, 2014)

RodISHI said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > you do realize you are nothing but a false sayer.....
> ...




yes i still pester them...especially when they dont have a clue what the bible says....

now you and i both know that no one knows the end time......not even the angels in heaven....why cause we read the bible.....i wished they would....

look busy jesus is coming!


----------



## Carla_Danger (Aug 5, 2014)

Mad Scientist said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > (skims for the science part...)
> ...







It's certainly not in the thread title. Evolution is not a religion, it's science. Science is not a religion.

I need to look no further to see this is a stupid thread.




.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 5, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


If postMP has any offspring, wouldn't that prove that the single cell in his brain can produce a multi-cellular organism?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 5, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



not true.....it is science that tells me the single celled organisms which cluster together only reproduce other single celled organisms.......it is YOUR faith that tells you that this is close enough to "multicelled" to constitute proof of evolution from single celled to multicelled......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 5, 2014)

BillyP said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



yet again you lack proof.....both my children are adopted.....


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 5, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
Not proof of evolution but evidence of how the change from single celled to multicelled organisms may have occurred.  And how small a step it really was.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 5, 2014)

Yes, they teach aeronautical engineering at universities but "that does not mean it is true".

Amazing the ignorance of the religious wrong.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 5, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



so the new scientific method is just "it may have occurred"?......how far "science" has fallen......


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 6, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Not proof of evolution but evidence of how the change from single celled to multicelled organisms may have occurred. And how small a step it really was.
> ...


 
Certainly the scientific method is less satisfying than religion.   Religion gives answers in lieu of evidence, science only provides theories that may or may not be true based on accumulated evidence.  If the evidence is lacking the theory must await judgement.  In science you often get an unsatisfying "we don't know" while religion provides the reassuring "because God wanted it that way".


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 6, 2014)

So of the thousands of accepted theories out there in the world scientists PICKED ONE, JUST ONE, to put out there that they KNOW is false yet they offer it as fact anyway.
That is what the religious right claims.
Anyone that claims that is true is a damn fool.
Evolution is considered as fact because it has stood up to FAR MORE rigor than any other scientific theory in the history of man.


----------



## GreenBean (Aug 6, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> So of the thousands of accepted theories out there in the world scientists PICKED ONE, JUST ONE, to put out there that they KNOW is false yet they offer it as fact anyway.
> That is what the religious right claims.
> Anyone that claims that is true is a damn fool.
> Evolution is considered as fact because it has stood up to FAR MORE rigor than any other scientific theory in the history of man.





> thousands of accepted theories



So tell us Old Buddy - what are a few of these "thousands of accepted theories" regarding how life on Earth came to be what it is.  I can only think of two Creationism and Evolution


----------



## BillyP (Aug 6, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


It's still evolution.


----------



## GISMYS (Aug 6, 2014)

BillyP said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



YES!!! EVERYONE KNOWS THERE IS ""MICRO"" evolution but MACRO evolution is pure BUNK  theory of ignorant,blinded,sin loving  little man TRYING TO RUN FROM GOD!!!


----------



## BillyP (Aug 6, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



Shut up, shit stain, nobody's talking yo you.


----------



## GISMYS (Aug 6, 2014)

BillyP said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



TRUTH HURT????? MACRO = A COW EVOLVES INTO A PIG AND A PIG DEVOLVES INTO you!!! TWEAK!!


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 6, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> So of the thousands of accepted theories out there in the world scientists PICKED ONE, JUST ONE, to put out there that they KNOW is false yet they offer it as fact anyway.
> That is what the religious right claims.
> Anyone that claims that is true is a damn fool.
> Evolution is considered as fact because it has stood up to FAR MORE rigor than any other scientific theory in the history of man.



actually I can think of two.....abiogenesis and human beings evolving from single celled organisms......and to be honest, if you think either of those is "fact" you're the biggest fool around......because neither has EVER, fucking EVER been subjected to any rigor......


----------



## MaryL (Aug 6, 2014)

Science isn't a belief system based on faith, it is based on interactions with the natural world. It isn't imposed on the outside world, it is observation and reasonable deductions based on how the physical world works. Not metaphysical guesses on how the world ought to be out of prejudices or guesswork. Evolution is NOT a religion, false or real or otherwise.  They say, religion is the opiate of the masses.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 6, 2014)

MaryL said:


> Science isn't a belief system based on faith, it is based on interactions with the natural world. It isn't imposed on the outside world, it is observation and reasonable deductions based on how the physical world works. Not metaphysical guesses on how the world ought to be out of prejudices or guesswork. Evolution is NOT a religion, false or real or otherwise.  They say, religion is the opiate of the masses.



macro evolution is crack......


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 7, 2014)

BillyP said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



micro-evolution.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 7, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



Add up lots of small changes and you have change over a long period of time. What's not to understand?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 7, 2014)

BillyP said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



the part where you pretend its been proven by science to have resulted in single celled organisms turning into humans......or even into multicelled organisms......


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 7, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > So of the thousands of accepted theories out there in the world scientists PICKED ONE, JUST ONE, to put out there that they KNOW is false yet they offer it as fact anyway.
> ...



Please start with showing where creationism is an accepted scientific theory.
Where did I claim that evolution was the ONLY accepted scientific theory?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 7, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


 
Proven to the satisfaction of the vast majority of those scientists that have studied it.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 7, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



What's your scientifically plausible alternative to what you call the pseudo-science of macro-evolution?

We are here, afterall.  We know the earth has a multi-billion year history, afterall.  We know the earth has been populated with thousands, maybe millions of different sorts - species if you will - of living creatures past and present.

Once you've rejected macro evolution, what are you left with as the better theory?


----------



## BillyP (Aug 7, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



So how did humans come about? God made them whole, no evolution required?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 7, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



99% of all scientists.


----------



## GISMYS (Aug 7, 2014)

YES!!! YOU CAN BREED DOGS for size color and such(micro evolution) but you can never breed a dog into a cow(macro evolution)  so how foolish to think pond scum evolved into humans??????????


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 7, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


isn't it funny that even though we keep pointing out that no one is claiming creationism is science instead of faith, every time we get close to convincing someone that abiogenesis and macro-evolution are not science they always fall back to "yeah, but creationism isn't science"....

we know that, dude!......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 7, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



well, if we are measuring truth by the number who believe, 3 billion Christians still trump you......

the simple fact of the matter is, regardless of how many scientists you quote, it has NOT been proven by science.....


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 7, 2014)

Santa Clause does not make all the toys that he delivers on Christmas Eve. He has a whole bunch of elves that work for him in his shop all year. Any fool knows that. This is a scientific fact.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 7, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> YES!!! YOU CAN BREED DOGS for size color and such(micro evolution) but you can never breed a dog into a cow(macro evolution) so how foolish to think pond scum evolved into humans??????????


 
How arrogant to tell God what he can and can't do.

You don't know the mechanism God used to create man, who's to say he didn't utilize evolution?


----------



## GISMYS (Aug 7, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > YES!!! YOU CAN BREED DOGS for size color and such(micro evolution) but you can never breed a dog into a cow(macro evolution) so how foolish to think pond scum evolved into humans??????????
> ...



LOL!!! READ GENESIS AND LEARN HOW GOD CREATED the universe and little man!!!


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 7, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


 
If I was looking for information about Christianity I'd ask a Christian, if I wanted information on science, I'd ask a scientist.


----------



## GISMYS (Aug 7, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



lol!!! all true science is GOD'S creation,not little man!!!


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 7, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...


 
Actually, Genesis only says he did, it doesn't tell us HOW he did it.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 7, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Actually, it does.  I believe it says we came out of a mud puddle.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 7, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



3 billion Christians and not a one that has any science to offer, not one shred of evidence, that God created man in his image.
Show us your picture of God and that will be evidence.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 7, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Yesterday on PBS they showed how whales use to have hind legs and walk on land.  I bet any christian that heard that doubted the scientists "theories" on that.  

The only way they'll believe that is if you show them a living whale with back legs.  

So we're even I guess?


----------



## BillyP (Aug 7, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Whales had to have legs back then, how else could they get into the Ark?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 7, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> YES!!! YOU CAN BREED DOGS for size color and such(micro evolution) but you can never breed a dog into a cow(macro evolution)  so how foolish to think pond scum evolved into humans??????????



You don't seem to be able to grasp the amount of time this evolution took.  We all came from the sea, eventually evolved into amphibians then reptiles then we split and birds and mammals and reptiles and amphibians.  

Humans were once a very small mole like mammal creature that eventually evolved into ape then into man.  Its fact.  

Whales use to walk on land.  They went the other way.  At least that's what science says.  Who are you to doubt little man?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 7, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


so, you concede that all the comments about Christianity posted here by non-Christians are invalid?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 7, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



99% of scientiests and not a one that has any science to offer, not one shred of evidence that a single celled organism evolved into a human being, or that the first living thing spontaneously appeared in a mud puddle......show me a picture of the first single celled organism and that will be evidence.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 7, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



true.....I'm an "agnostic atheist" when it comes to whales with back legs.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 7, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > YES!!! YOU CAN BREED DOGS for size color and such(micro evolution) but you can never breed a dog into a cow(macro evolution)  so how foolish to think pond scum evolved into humans??????????
> ...



very inefficient.....an intelligent designer could shorten that by millions of years.....


----------



## GreenBean (Aug 7, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Ahhh - gadawg ... are you trying to deflect ?...   I thought you could do better than that .
creationism is accepted by some scientists - not literal "as per genesis" creationism but varying elements of it - but that wasn't the issue and you know that damn well little fella -Dont ya- *What were the "thousands" of theories other than the two mentioned *.  You have several options - you can 
1.] Ignore the question and hope it goes away.
2.] Deflect and try to change the subject
3.] Come up with some half baked answer - which I will be more than glad to tear apart for you

I'm betting on # 1


----------



## BillyP (Aug 7, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Show me a picture of your god!


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 7, 2014)

Not that I give a rat's ass what Catholics believe, but even the Pope has stated that there is no incapability between creationism and evolution. However, we can't expect some guy who happens to live in the Vatican to know more about religion than anonymous message board posters. However, it is clear that, when counting Christians that don't believe in evolution, one would have to subtract a hell of a lot of Catholics (Pun intended).


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 7, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Not invalid, just not authoritative.  If I had a question on Catholicism I'd trust a priest before I'd trust a rabbi.  Of course there are no universal authorities in Christendom, there isn't even consensus as to who is a Christian.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 7, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



Actually it doesn't.  It tells what God did and when (relatively speaking) but never the slightest mention of how.  

How and why does a mud puddle become a human?  If God can make the earth from nothing what does he need a puddle for?  Were all the molecules or elements present in the puddle?

And "breathing" life is not going to cut it, aside from the fact that God has no need for lungs, it says nothing about how God can "breath" life.


----------



## GISMYS (Aug 7, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



LOL!!! Must I tell you everything?? GOD SPOKE ALL CREATION INTO BEING WITH JUST HIS WORDS!!! =LET IT BE!!! AND SO IT WAS!!!


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 7, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> LOL!!! Must I tell you everything?? GOD SPOKE ALL CREATION INTO BEING WITH JUST HIS WORDS!!! =LET IT BE!!! AND SO IT WAS!!!



How does his words bring things into existence?  What are God's words anyway?  Does he have lungs and a larynx?  How did he speak before the universe existed?  Who is he talking to, himself?

 I'm guessing this "words" weren't words like we think of them so what were they?


----------



## GISMYS (Aug 7, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > LOL!!! Must I tell you everything?? GOD SPOKE ALL CREATION INTO BEING WITH JUST HIS WORDS!!! =LET IT BE!!! AND SO IT WAS!!!
> ...





&#9668; Psalm 33:9 &#9658;
For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 7, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Well, I assumed it was raining...   And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground....


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 7, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > LOL!!! Must I tell you everything?? GOD SPOKE ALL CREATION INTO BEING WITH JUST HIS WORDS!!! =LET IT BE!!! AND SO IT WAS!!!
> ...



He was a persuasive speaker?


----------



## GISMYS (Aug 7, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


WHY BE A SILLY TARD??? THINK!!! GOD'S WORD OFTEN MAKES USE OF ""METAPHORS""
========For the word of the Lord is right, and all His works are done in truth.

5 He loveth righteousness and judgment; the earth is full of the goodness of the Lord.

6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.

7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as a heap; He layeth up the deep in storehouses.

8 Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.

9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.

10 The Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought; He maketh the devices of the people of no effect.

11 The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations.

12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, and the people whom He hath chosen for His own inheritance.

13 The Lord looketh down from heaven; He beholdeth all of the sons of men.

14 From the place of His habitation He looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth;

15 He fashioneth the hearts of all; He considereth all their works.

16 No king is saved by the multitude of an army; a mighty man is not delivered by much strength.

17 A horse is a vain thing for safety; neither shall he deliver any by his great strength.

18 Behold, the eye of the Lord is upon them that fear Him, upon them that hope in His mercy,

19 to deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine.

20 Our soul waiteth for the Lord; He is our help and our shield.

21 For our heart shall rejoice in Him, because we have trusted in His holy name.

22 Let Thy mercy, O Lord, be upon us, according as we hope in Thee.
PSALM 33


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 7, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



By George, I think you are right!  "Dust of the ground" must be a metaphor.  It refers to life coming from a primordial soup.  Life from the very elements of the Earth.  Excellent!  You have just demonstrated via the Word of God that abiogenesis is true!   You should feel proud.


----------



## GISMYS (Aug 7, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



YES!!! GOD MADE MAN FROM THE DUST OF THE EARTH AND GOD BREATHED THE BREATH OF LIFE INTO THE FIRST MAN!!!! COME INTO THE LIGHT OF TRUTH AND live!!!


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 7, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



And people think they can't agree.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 7, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I take it you didn't read the comment I was replying to, did you......(and people wonder why I think atheists are dimwitted)........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 7, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



well, except for the spontaneous part of the hypothesis of abiogenesis.....


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 7, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> Not that I give a rat's ass what Catholics believe, but even the Pope has stated that there is no incapability between creationism and evolution. However, we can't expect some guy who happens to live in the Vatican to know more about religion than anonymous message board posters. However, it is clear that, when counting Christians that don't believe in evolution, one would have to subtract a hell of a lot of Catholics (Pun intended).



Truth is absolute. Therefore the Bible is true whether or not the Pope believes it or not.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 7, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You say creation isn't scientific because you can't see God, but you have never seen the first single celled organism, yet you believe in evolutionism.

Everyone has to put their faith somewhere. Evolutionism just takes WAY to much blind faith for me.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 8, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I was repeating it because you ignored it, of course. I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way for the existence of god or not, but if anyone ever comes up with any proof either way I'm open to changing my mind. Can't be any fairer than that.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 8, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Evolution is based on science, god is based on fantasy.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 8, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



sad....all that sarcasm gone to waste because you weren't bright enough to pick up on it.....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 8, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



I'm still open to changing my mind if you ever come up with any actual proof of your god.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 8, 2014)

/shrugs......and if you show me actual proof that human beings evolved from single celled organisms I will believe you as well......


----------



## BillyP (Aug 8, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> /shrugs......and if you show me actual proof that human beings evolved from single celled organisms I will believe you as well......



I don't care if you believe it or not. Deduction is not a strength of theists.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 8, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > /shrugs......and if you show me actual proof that human beings evolved from single celled organisms I will believe you as well......
> ...



lol.....I'll bet you think atheists are rational, don't you........


----------



## BillyP (Aug 8, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Atheists are just as deluded as theists, there's no proof that a god can never exist, or doesn't actually.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 8, 2014)

Bible verses offered as science.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 8, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



"Creationism is accepted by some scientists"
Accepted as what? Scientific fact?
Show me the testing on creationism, the studies and the results.
Show me the questions that were asked, the background research, the construction of the hypothesis, the experiments used in testing the hypothesis, the analysis done that formed the foundation of the conclusions and the published results.

There are not any dude. Creationism is A BELIEF and beliefs are NOT SCIENCE.

Give it up, I work and train harder than you do. I put the time in the weight room in, early and often.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 8, 2014)

BillyP said:


> Atheists are just as deluded as theists, there's no proof that a god can never exist, or doesn't actually.


 
There are no proofs of just about anything.  It is delusional to ones base beliefs on these non-existent proofs.  Evidence and experience are all we get and should use them wisely.


----------



## GreenBean (Aug 8, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Kindly do not quote me out of context - Thank You very Much.

I said -  creationism is accepted by some scientists - *not literal "as per genesis" creationism but varying elements of it * 



> Give it up, I work and train harder than you do. I put the time in the weight room in, early and often



Well goody goody for you - the last time I was in a weight room was to collect a debt from the owner -but what's that got to do with price of tea in China ?  In this forum - if you want to impress - you'd be well advised to work out your mind as well as your body , because apparently you are extremely lacking in your mental faculties.

@Gadawg - *OT* I just wanted to point something out to you re: some of your past posts on this site.  Do you  realize that the internet is a dangerous place - there are a lot of devious and really nasty people who for whatever reason might wish you harm. Personally- any harm I do to you is simply to your inflated ego, but do you realize that with information you've alreday given me [and others] you could be tracked down very easily.

You've told me what college you went to
You've told me what football team you were on
You've told me what years you played and who you played against
You've told me what profession you went into
You've told me you once had an office on Buckhead Rd. 

Shall I continue .....  Being that you worked as a PI - how hard do you think it would be for someone track you down - if they were so inclined ?
Personally _ i would never do that - you're simply here for my entertainment .

My purpose in bringing this up is to point out that you are not really as intelligent as your big muscles lead you to believe .  Let me conclude these words of advice with a  quote from another football player - Joe Theismann, ESPN Announcer and Former NFL Quarterback


> "Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."



Regards and Have a Pleasant Day


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 9, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> YES!!! YOU CAN BREED DOGS for size color and such(micro evolution) but you can never breed a dog into a cow(macro evolution)  so how foolish to think pond scum evolved into humans??????????



If you give me 5 billion years to work on it, I'll bet I can breed one species into another.  In fact, I'll bet I wouldn't have to, because nature would do it for me.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 9, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Bible verses offered as science.



versus imagination offered as science?......at least the Bible has withstood the test of time......what's abiogenesis got to prop it up?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 9, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Show me the testing on creationism, the studies and the results.



why do you require that for creationism but not for abiogenesis?......


----------



## GISMYS (Aug 9, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > YES!!! YOU CAN BREED DOGS for size color and such(micro evolution) but you can never breed a dog into a cow(macro evolution)  so how foolish to think pond scum evolved into humans??????????
> ...



GOD'S LAW SAYS=Everything must reproduce after its own kind, because it is a law from God.
Boyd K. Packer (Quorum of the Twelve)


No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce "after their own kind." (See  Moses 2:12, 24  .) They follow the pattern of their parentage. . . . A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles, nor "do men gather . . . figs of thistles" (  Matthew 7:16  ).


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 9, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



Never told you what college I went to, never and you could not guess.
Or what team, you could not guess as I have never said that. 
Never said what years I played, when or where 
Never had an office on "Buckhead Rd."
Never had really big muscles, I am big, fast, quick, well trained and educated and WAS a maniac coming off the edge.
And unlike you I have never claimed to be a genius.
But I have common sense which is not so common these days as illustrated by you.


----------



## GISMYS (Aug 9, 2014)

JUST FACE FACT=TRUTH=EVOLUTION IS BUNK "science"=THE RELIGION OF GOD HATING SIN LOVING FOOLS. WHO ELSE WOULD THINK THE MOST COMPLEX THING IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE=THE HUMAN BRAIN AND BODY COULD EVER BE JUST AN ACCIDENT OF TIME AND CHANCE??? ROFLMAO!


----------



## GreenBean (Aug 9, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...






> Never told you what college I went to, never and you could not guess.



  YOu told me what college footbal team you played on when you tried to make a joke about whether I played on a oppossing team  that you shut-out - creamed back in your college career . Beat Miss.



> Or what team, you could not guess as I have never said that.



Yes - you did Buddy Boy 



> Never said what years I played, when or where



You mentioned the Game, the opposing team and the score the rest well ... C'est la vie 



> Never had an office on "Buckhead Rd."



You're right - my memory lapsed on that one - it was *Roswell rd in the Buckhead section of ATlanta Ga. *



> I used to have my agency on Roswell Rd. in the heart of Buckhead in Atlanta.
> Had a case where a wealthy socialite liked to roll hard boiled eggs at the vagina of his wife, mistress and girlfriends while he was wearing a fireman's suit and hat.
> It wasn't normal and no one called it normal but it was normal to him and his wife.
> And no one stopped him from getting a marriage license.
> ...



*You must remember that - that's the time you got caught stealing as story from the Owl and the Pussycat with Barbara Streisand -thinking noone would catch you 
*



> Never had really big muscles, I am big, fast, quick, well trained and educated and WAS a maniac coming off the edge.



Okay - Ill give you that One - that was an assumption based on your pompous bragging about the time you spend in the Gym.




> And unlike you I have never claimed to be a genius.



I've never laid claim to Genius - I have an above average IQ - but fell shy of Mensa by a few points, I let my posts speak for themselves , some are better than others.  Now if you want to speak comparitively - copmpared to you - then yes I could be considered a Genuis. 



> But I have common sense which is not so common these days as illustrated by you.



Well apparently you didnt have it when you gave up all that information where the whole world could see it -LOL


----------



## GreenBean (Aug 10, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > YES!!! YOU CAN BREED DOGS for size color and such(micro evolution) but you can never breed a dog into a cow(macro evolution)  so how foolish to think pond scum evolved into humans??????????
> ...



A horse has 64 chromoseones and a donkey has 62 - they are 2 distinct but related species.  The two can be bred [naturally] and the offspring is a Mule.

 The female mule can't breed - it's suppossed to be  sterile - or so they thought - there are 2 cases now known on the planet where they've produced offspring One in China and the other in the USA  -  Mule's foal fools genetics with "impossible" birth - The Denver Post  ./ So I believe it is highly likley that similar scenarios with other species has occurred in nature over the last several hundred Centuries.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 10, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



You are right.
I have a stalker.
You need professional help Moe.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 10, 2014)

BillyP said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



Right. Micro-evolution is based on science, gods are based on fantasy, evolutionism is based on delusion and fantasy, and Creation is a fact.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 10, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



Because they accept it with blind faith.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 10, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> We are here, afterall.



I agree.




NYcarbineer said:


> We know the earth has a multi-billion year history



No, that is an assumption. This assumption is based on the assumption that the fossils in the ground are old and the fossils are said to be old because the rock in which they are found are old.



NYcarbineer said:


> We know the earth has been populated with thousands, maybe millions of different sorts - species if you will - of living creatures past and present.



There sure is a diversity of life forms out there isn't there. There are a lot of different styles, sizes, shapes and brands of automobiles too. All of those had a designer. 



NYcarbineer said:


> Once you've rejected macro evolution, what are you left with as the better theory?



My suggestion is don't accept macro-evolution in the first place. Creation is the obvious option.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 
(Romans 1:20)


----------



## GreenBean (Aug 10, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You need to excercise some wisdom and better judgement my friend- I know you have very little intelligence to work with - your posts are proof positive of that , but being that you were involved in the Investigations Profession {or so you say} YOU of all people should know better than to post that amount of personal information on line .  I was only involved in the Mental Hygene field -not security or investigations and I was able to ascertain what I did in about 10 minutes - imagine what someone who really had an axe to grind with you could do.  Regards and sleep tight ---- LOL ---- Oh yes , you have an outstanding parking ticket - old - I'd take care of that if I were you <LMAO >


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 10, 2014)

BillyP said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



Things do change over time. I agree.

Cars rust, paint fades, cloths decay, people evolve wrinkles, we even get dogs that look different from one another, etc.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 11, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
Are you implying that you've looked at both sides of the issue and made a rational decision?  I suspect you are just accusing your foes of doing exactly what you do.

Either way it's an easy accusation to make but hard to prove.  Do you have any evidence to share or are you blithely violating the commandment against bearing false witness?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 11, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> GOD'S LAW SAYS=Everything must reproduce after its own kind, because it is a law from God.
> Boyd K. Packer (Quorum of the Twelve)
> 
> No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce "after their own kind." (See Moses 2:12, 24 .) They follow the pattern of their parentage. . . . A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles, nor "do men gather . . . figs of thistles" ( Matthew 7:16 ).


 
What exactly is this biblical "kind"?  I never quite understood it but it appears to differ from a biological species.  Can you define what it is or have you never bothered to think about it?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 11, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> JUST FACE FACT=TRUTH=EVOLUTION IS BUNK "science"=THE RELIGION OF GOD HATING SIN LOVING FOOLS. WHO ELSE WOULD THINK THE MOST COMPLEX THING IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE=THE HUMAN BRAIN AND BODY COULD EVER BE JUST AN ACCIDENT OF TIME AND CHANCE??? ROFLMAO!


 
Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean that no one can.  You may know your Bible but I doubt you know much about biology, geology, or any of the sciences.  Am I wrong?


----------



## BillyP (Aug 11, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> My suggestion is don't accept macro-evolution in the first place. *Creation is the obvious option.*
> 
> For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
> (Romans 1:20)



So for proof you quote a book that has no basis in fact? After saying that science is crap?


----------



## BillyP (Aug 11, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> You need to excercise some wisdom and better judgement my friend- I know you have very little intelligence to work with - your posts are proof positive of that , but being that you were involved in the Investigations Profession {or so you say} YOU of all people should know better than to post that amount of personal information on line .  *I was only involved in the Mental Hygene field* -not security or investigations and I was able to ascertain what I did in about 10 minutes - imagine what someone who really had an axe to grind with you could do.  Regards and sleep tight ---- LOL ---- Oh yes , you have an outstanding parking ticket - old - I'd take care of that if I were you <LMAO >



How long were you in? Or is the internet something new on your ward?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 11, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > We are here, afterall.
> ...



Okay so you're engaging in some sort of anti-science, anti-evidence, anti-intellectual, anti-reason nihilism that simply rejects the principle that human beings have any ability to draw logical conclusions from the observable reality around them.

That's madness.  Literally.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 11, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Is it rational to believe with certainty in ghosts?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 11, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



If an atheist believes with certainty there is no God, and a Christian believes with certainty there is a God,

why would the former be dimwitted, if not the latter equally so?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 11, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



And why would one assume that the Biblical version of creation is the right one?  There are hundreds of creation stories.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 11, 2014)

BillyP said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > My suggestion is don't accept macro-evolution in the first place. *Creation is the obvious option.*
> ...



no one is saying science is crap......we may have mentioned that the things you believe about science are crap.....


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 11, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > We are here, afterall.
> ...



In the example I've made before, 

you're making that argument that at some point in time, from one moment to the next, there was a empty field, but in that next moment, there were horses in the field,

fully formed, appearing out of nowhere.

One must simply abandon all science altogether in order to accept that as a fact.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 11, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



I don't know....does this person who believes in ghosts claim its a rational conclusion?......


----------



## GreenBean (Aug 11, 2014)

BillyP said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > You need to excercise some wisdom and better judgement my friend- I know you have very little intelligence to work with - your posts are proof positive of that , but being that you were involved in the Investigations Profession {or so you say} YOU of all people should know better than to post that amount of personal information on line .  *I was only involved in the Mental Hygene field* -not security or investigations and I was able to ascertain what I did in about 10 minutes - imagine what someone who really had an axe to grind with you could do.  Regards and sleep tight ---- LOL ---- Oh yes , you have an outstanding parking ticket - old - I'd take care of that if I were you <LMAO >
> ...



Silly Little Troll


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 11, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



What is or isn't rational isn't that person's decision.

Again, is it rational to believe with certainty in ghosts?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 11, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...




Did you not claim above, implicitly, that atheists are not rational?

Why aren't they?


----------



## BillyP (Aug 11, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Because there's no proof that a god can't exist.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 11, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



So, "mental hygiene", you were a hairdresser? That explains a lot.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 11, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



I have nothing to hide.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 11, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



because they say that believing in something without proof is irrational and then state that there is no God, something they believe without proof.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 11, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



do you have proof there are no ghosts?.....if not you may believe it, you may be certain of it, but you cannot come to a rational conclusion on the issue?......


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 11, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



That makes believing - with certainty - IN God without proof irrational,

thus leaving the only rational position to be to not believe in God, since there is no evidence thereof,

while yet acknowledging that proving the non-existence of something is normally impossible, therefore,

the possibility of there being a God who until now has not been revealed must be considered.

eh? lol


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 11, 2014)

BillyP said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



How much of anything must a person acknowledge as a possibility before he can be rated 'rational' on the subject?

Would an atheist magically become rational if he were to say,  'I don't believe in God, I don't believe God exists, but hey, 

anything's possible.'

??


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 11, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



You know you have a problem if one person walks up to you and explains evolution and you say BULLSHIT and then another person tells you the Jesus story and you believe it whole heartedly.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 11, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



So again,  'anything is possible, nothing is impossible' is the only rational position a person can have on the subject?

IOW, no matter what your religion or set of beliefs, to doubt the existence of God is the only rational view to have on that issue.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 11, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



Evolution doesn't offer you a future.


----------



## indiajo (Aug 11, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Of course not. It's honest. You don't have one.


----------



## natstew (Aug 11, 2014)

If you believe that 'Evolution leaves no room for Creation' you're a fool.

If you believe 'Creation leaves no room for Evolution, you're a fool.


----------



## GISMYS (Aug 11, 2014)

natstew said:


> If you believe that 'Evolution leaves no room for Creation' you're a fool.
> 
> If you believe 'Creation leaves no room for Evolution, you're a fool.



EVOLUTION IS A EVIL DEMON INSPIRED THEORY OF little GOD hating,God rejecting blinded man!!!


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 11, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Look at boss.  Even without jesus he believes his soul will live on forever.  Not a dophins or ape or bear.  When they die the energy just dies.  He can see that's probably true but he just can't believe his soul ends when his physical body expires.  

To think you have a soul but a tiger doesn't is irrational.

To think your spirit lives on is irrational.  

And these people, even if one day they give up on christianity, will still believe they have a personal relationship with god.  I know because I use to be one of them.  Now I see that if none of the organized religions are real, what makes me believe god is real?  

Boss says because we have believed from as far back as we can trace humans that this is  proof a god exists.  That is not proof.  That only explains that our ancient ancestors weren't very smart, didn't know science, had a natural fear of the unknown, were superstitious and they had brains that could imagine gods, devils, ghosts, spirits, space ships, angels, etc.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 11, 2014)

natstew said:


> If you believe that 'Evolution leaves no room for Creation' you're a fool.
> 
> If you believe 'Creation leaves no room for Evolution, you're a fool.



Yes it is possible that a god(s) hit a marble into a group of marbles and caused the big bang.

So you think we were intelligently designed?

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them. We cannot prove that all other possible forms of life would be infeasible with a different set of conditions or constants because the only universe that we can observe is the one we occupy. Indeed, modelling suggests star formation (a necessary precursor to our form of biology) may be viable under a number of different universal conditions.

Without actual proof of creation, naturalistic explanations for the properties of this universe cannot be wholly ruled out. It is possible an infinity of universes  exist, all with different conditions and forms of life. The fact that our particular universe has the physical constants we observe may be no more to the point than the fact a hand of cards, dealt from a shuffled deck, is the one a hypothetical player holds. Though the chances of any one universe being hospitable to life might be low, the conditional probability of a form of life observing a set of constants suitable to it is exactly unity. That is to say, every possible universe would appear fine-tuned to the form of life it harbors, while all those inhospitable universes would never be observed by life at all.

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesnt it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it! This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, its still frantically hanging on to the notion that everythings going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. - Douglas Adams


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 11, 2014)

BillyP said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years  waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way  and then simply disappeared.


----------



## GISMYS (Aug 11, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



GOD IS OUTSIDE TIME AS HE SAYS A DAY TO HIM IS LIKE A THOUSAND YEARS AND A THOUSAND YEARS AS A DAY!!! GOD IS AWESOME FAR BEYOUND YOUR little peanut brain thinking!!!


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 11, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



What did he do before us?  Probably another one of his failed experiments.  You'd think he'd get it right after all this time.


----------



## GISMYS (Aug 11, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



ROFLMAO!!! YOU ARE REALLY A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME HERE!!!Huh???


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 11, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


true, if you are an atheist......If, on the other hand, you don't agree that believing in something without proof is irrational, it does NOT make believing in God without proof irrational....

it is the inherent self contradiction which makes the atheist irrational.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 11, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



that which they cannot prove......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 11, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



no....some things can be proven impossible.......


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 11, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...




If there are things that are provably impossible, that would be proof that an omnipotent God cannot exist,

for with such a God, anything would be possible.   That's how omnipotence works.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 11, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



That principle would render our system of justice irrational, since the standard for proof of guilt is only beyond reasonable doubt,

not beyond all possible doubt.

Is our justice irrational?  Is it justice to put a man's fate in the hands of the outcome of an irrational system?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 11, 2014)

BillyP said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Is there proof that you can't flip a coin a billion times and end up with a billiion consecutive 'heads'?  (no tricks involved...)


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 11, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



Are you really ROTF?  Are you really Laughing out loud?  I doubt it.  

See dear, you are the waste of time.  All the leading scientists who specialize in this area have a bunch of reasons why they believe in evolution.  They use facts, proof, evidence, etc to come up with their conclusions.  If someone challenges a claim they are ok with that because they aren't set in their ways as far as their beliefs go.  We are open to new evidence.

But you are not you fucking idiot.  You believe a 2000 year old book filled with impossible stories.  So it is you who is a waste of time if you deny evolution and believe christianity.

AND YOU??????  You are so gay it sickens me.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 11, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



would an omnipotent God make your arguments lucid?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 11, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



do you believe atheists can prove God does not exist to even the standard of a preponderance of the evidence, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 11, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



usually the test fails around ten.....


----------



## GreenBean (Aug 11, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Fer sure dude - Nor anything to show


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 12, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



Sure have your attention.


----------



## GreenBean (Aug 12, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Don't flatter yourself you are just Pure Entertainment  - Your Feeble Minded Follies are Funny  :>


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



I base that on what you accuse atheists of - irrationality.  You set the standard of what constitutes irrationality, and by your standard, a firm believer in unobservable supernatural beings is irrational.  

btw, an atheist does not have to reject the idea that an unobservable supernatural being might in fact exist.

I don't believe that unicorns exist.  I will continue to not believe in them until someone shows me one.  Why does that make me irrational?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



I will walk you through it:

1.  You claimed that some things can be proven to be impossible.

2.  With an omnipotent God, anything is possible.

3.  1. and 2. are unequivocally incompatible.  Whichever is the truth, 1. or 2., the other cannot also be the truth.

So you have taken the position that because some things are in fact impossible, then an omnipotent God cannot exist...

...1. is true therefore 2. cannot be true.

Did you wish to change that position?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



That's not an answer.  Is there PROOF you can't flip a coin a billiion times heads in a row?

If you set a machine to work that simulated coin flips one per second and let it run for, say 5 billion years,  

what number of consecutive flips of heads (or tails of course) would it prove was the maximum number possible?

Or would it actually prove anything?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Given that there is no evidence OF God's existence, why would they have to?  None of the claims of God's existence are evidentiary in nature.

And btw you dodged the point.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 12, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


no by my standard, a person who claims that an act is irrational and then does it, is irrational......



> btw, an atheist does not have to reject the idea that an unobservable supernatural being might in fact exist.


of course they don't have to.....they choose to.....and once they choose to they are atheists instead of agnostics.....



> I don't believe that unicorns exist.  I will continue to not believe in them until someone shows me one.  Why does that make me irrational?


do you claim to have proof that unicorns do not exist?.......that would make you irrational.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 12, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



not at all.....you see, I assumed you were rational and were thinking about things that naturally occur.....there are things that do not naturally occur and can be proven not to occur......you have now added another dimension......can something be caused supernaturally that cannot naturally occur......the answer is yes.....however, my argument is still perfectly accurate and you have gained nothing.....thus we see that God has not intervened and made your argument lucid.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 12, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I am not aware of any such proof but I am prepared to let you experiment as long as you want......

however, if your only purpose is to find something that can be proven impossible, why not use something that takes less time.......can H20 boil at a temperature of 31 F?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 12, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



they would have to because they claim it is irrational to believe something which cannot be proven.....


as to your "point" it is diversionary and I didn't dodge it, I ignored it.....the standard set by a court of law for criminal proceedings has nothing to do with the standards atheists set for convincing them that something is to be believed.....


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



I know to an absolute certainty that Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist.  Because to do that, they would have to prove everything that does exist in the universe and from that demonstrate that the evidence shows nothing in terms of God's existence.

So, the fact that we, as a species, know only an insignificant percentage of what does exist in the universe... we have no means to even know what questions one might ask, to even begin to learn what we'd need to know before we could begin to understand the ideas that might lead us to know what we'd need to know to even think about what God might be, pretty well precludes any potential legitimacy for the Anti-theist premise.

It' foolishness on a grand scale.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 12, 2014)

BillyP said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



LOL!  Not true.

God is the creator of the universe.  The universe exists, therefore, the creator of that which exists, exists.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 13, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



First of all I asked you if our legal system was irrational because it only requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to beyond all doubt,

because that was the standard you set for the rationality of atheists.  You wouldn't address that.

Secondly, the atheist 'standard' for belief is essentially unchallenged at any level, since there is no demonstrable material evidence whatsoever to support the argument for the existence of an unseen supernatural being.  Hence the word 'faith' to describe belief in such.

Again, you are defining 'irrational' as the refusal to believe in something just because there is no evidence of it existing.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 13, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Atheism is not a belief system.  As the old saying goes, to call atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby.

To call atheists irrational because they don't believe in the existence of a God is like calling Jews irrational for not believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I've never a human fly like a bird - unassisted -  just by flapping his arms.  If I conclude from that that humans cannot fly like birds, that their arms are not capable of functioning like bird's wings,

I don't think you can call me irrational.

However, if you tell me that humans can fly like birds, but that we just haven't figured out what the trick to it is, or somesuch,

are you thinking rationally?  Which of us with our respective conclusions is more rational?


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 13, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



That assumes your initial definition is correct.  Do you have any evidence for that?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 13, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



All I did was introduce the idea of anything is possible, and you claimed that was wrong.

Now you're distorting what I said so you don't have to admit you were wrong.  

*Are you CERTAIN that supernatural intervention can occur and thus make anything possible?*


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 13, 2014)

Let me just bring things up to date.

PostModern is claiming that a rational human being MUST believe in the supernatural, in order to be rational.

I don't.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Do you consider the conclusion there is a god and the conclusion there is not a god to be equally rational?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 13, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Who is more dogmatic, a devout Christian or an atheist?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


I know.....I said it was irrelevant, I didn't say I didn't read it....



> because that was the standard you set for the rationality of atheists.  You wouldn't address that.


no....I didn't set the standard for atheists.....they did.....they say that believing something which cannot be proven is irrational.....



> Secondly, the atheist 'standard' for belief is essentially unchallenged at any level, since there is no demonstrable material evidence whatsoever to support the argument for the existence of an unseen supernatural being.  Hence the word 'faith' to describe belief in such.


and that is where they violate their own standard by saying "there is no god", something with no demonstrable material evidence whatsoever in support....again, hence the word "faith" to describe what they claim is reason......


> Again, you are defining 'irrational' as the refusal to believe in something just because there is no evidence of it existing.


not at all....irrational is claiming that believing in something without evidence is irrational when simultaneously believing in something without evidence and pretending its rational......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



lol.....


> As the old saying goes, to call atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby


.
never was a very intelligent saying......still isn't....


> To call atheists irrational because they don't believe in the existence of a God is like calling Jews irrational for not believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ.



I've explained it clearly several times.....if you haven't understood it yet, you likely never will.....



> I don't think you can call me irrational.



hard to say, you may alternatively be willful or ignorant....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Let me just bring things up to date.
> 
> PostModern is claiming that a rational human being MUST believe in the supernatural, in order to be rational.
> 
> I don't.



why would you want to repeat a false statement.....to reinforce the possibility that you are debating dishonestly?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


it IS wrong....everything is not possible, everything is not impossible.....that proves nothing with respect to the existence of a deity.....


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 13, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



No.  The weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion based on the principles of rationality that God exists.

But no one is under the obligation to be purely rational.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 13, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



So a unicorn is neither possible nor impossible?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



how would you propose to measure the difference?......


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 13, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



And I know to an absolute certainty that I or no one can prove that God does exist.
Because that is a belief.
Atheists do not believe in God and religious people do believe in God.
That is the difference between beliefs and science.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


????.....does "everything" mean unicorn in your dictionary?.....you are the one claiming anything is possible.....I disagree with you....I do not believe in unicorns.....


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 13, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> [
> 
> no....I didn't set the standard for atheists.....they did.....they say that believing something which cannot be proven is irrational.....
> 
> ..



Not all atheists hold exactly the same opinions for starters.  Atheists can be atheists while still possessing a degree of agnosticism, 

as can theists.  You can believe in God while not being absolutely certain that he exists.

But as to believing in something as a fact without proof is irrational.  That's inherent in the definition of rationality.

You, however, are clinging to the insistence that only non-believers can be irrational.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 13, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a scientifically established fact.  No scientist is questioning that it is real.  The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening.  You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.
> ...



For evolution we have DNA, and genetics. We actually engineer with genetics. Gravity?? We do not know how it works. We have equations that tell us what the effects are, but no solid explanation as to how it works. We do not engineer gravity. No anti-gravity machine, nor any idea of how such would work.

Yes, for some reason for the last 20 years, it has been liberals that work at understanding science while 'Conservatives' work at denying science, and willfully maintaining their ignorance as a badge of honor.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



true they may all have different favorite foods, but everyone of them says there is no god.....that's what makes them atheists.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 13, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


odd.....I'm both a conservative and a Christian and I believe in both DNA and gravity....did I miss something?.......


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



You have stated Atheism is not a belief system, but stating it does not make it so.  If it is based upon belief, then it is a belief system.

So, what evidence - other than belief - can you present that the conclusion that God exists is less rational than the conclusion that God does not exist?


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



That would depend upon the person.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 13, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Exactly as both are beliefs only.


----------



## DGS49 (Aug 13, 2014)

Religion is basically how Man explains the unexplainable.  Why do good people die young? Why do natural disasters occur?  What controls the weather?

What is often forgotten is that Darwin's hypothesis about the origins of species was universally rejected at first, BECAUSE ALL OBSERVATION POINTS TO AN OMNIPOTENT CREATOR!  Think about it.  There is simply no way that all plant and animal life can have reached its present state - ideally adapted to its enviroment in an infinite number of ways - unless it was all planned by an infinitely intelligent being or force.

But "god' is not a scientific/natural explanation, and Science demands an explanation that does not rely on supernatural phenomena.

So if you increase the timeline essentially to "infinity," then I suppose it's possible that the great variety of life on earth can be explained by gradual adaptation through the process of natural selection.  The "Theory of Evolution" is the explanation of how species originated, based on all observable evidence (recognizing that human history does not record a single example - other than perhaps in bacteria - when one species has evolved into another species).  ANY TRUE SCIENTIST WILL LOOK CRITICALLY AT EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING, TO SEE IF THE THEORY NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED OR ABANDONED IN FAVOR OF SOME OTHER THEORY.

The difference between Science and Religion is basically this:  When Religion encounters evidence that contradicts the Faith ("heresy"), it reacts by attacking the publisher of that evidence, attacking the evidence, ignoring the evidence, or (usually) trying to reconcile the evidence with the Faith.  Thus, rational Bible-believers long ago conceded that much of the Bible is "allegorical" and not to be understood as historical, scientifically accurate information.

On the other hand, when Science encounters evidence that contradicts the currently prevailing hypothesis, it first seeks to reproduce the evidence, to make sure that it is scientifically repeatable and sound.  Then it re-examines the hypothesis to see if it still works.  For example, "atomic theory" went through several different models before arriving at the current understanding.

The best summary that I have read of the contra-indications to Evolution are in an Ann Coulter book, tho I can't recall which one it was.  She devotes an entire chapter an dit is well-researched and footnoted.

Politically and psychologically, the biggest problem with "Evolution" now is that its most vociferous proponents are Liberal-atheists - definitely not scientific types, who truly only know enough about Evolution to realize that it does not need "god" to work.  Thus, for those people, Evolution has become a substitute religion, and when anything is said or produced that contradicts their tenuous understanding of Evolution, the react in the way described above for religious heretics. Because they don't have the scientific bona fides to rebut evidence scientifically.

For them, Evolution is a religion and not a scientific theory.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 13, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Ok.  I agree with you.  But you also said this:

"And I know to an absolute certainty that I or no one can prove that God does exist.
Because that is a belief.
Atheists do not believe in God and religious people do believe in God.
That is the difference between beliefs and science. "

NYCarbineer has said that the "not God" position is the more rational, which you agree is a belief.  Does that mean NYCarbineer is not an Atheist?


----------



## GreenBean (Aug 13, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



eloquently clutching at straws  



> For evolution we have DNA, and genetics. We actually engineer with genetics.



Such as GMOs - Genetically Modified Organisms  - 



> for some reason for the last 20 years, it has been liberals that work at understanding science



Such as the Liberal Tofu eating Tree Huggers who campaign vigorously against GMOs and other Scientific achievements , or perhaps the Liberal asshats who have destroyed the Space Program - because "We have more pressing problems here on Earth"  such as replacing the American Worker with cheaper South American illegal Immigrants. 

If its the Climate Change Deniers of which you refer to - Climate Change is an unproven theory - there is as much proof against it as there is for it . Personally - I don't have an opinion on it - because as stated  -  there is as much proof against it as there is for it 



> We do not engineer gravity. No anti-gravity machine, nor any idea of how such would work.



So we don't engineer around gravity ?  WOW  - I guess someone should tell all those planes , helicopters and other *aerodynamic machines* up in the sky right now - that they should get their heads out of the clouds and come back down to Earth.- Right ?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 13, 2014)

DGS49 said:


> The best summary that I have read of the contra-indications to Evolution are in an Ann Coulter book, tho I can't recall which one it was. She devotes an entire chapter an dit is well-researched and footnoted.
> 
> Politically and psychologically, the biggest problem with "Evolution" now is that its most vociferous proponents are Liberal-atheists - definitely not scientific types, who truly only know enough about Evolution to realize that it does not need "god" to work. Thus, for those people, Evolution has become a substitute religion, and when anything is said or produced that contradicts their tenuous understanding of Evolution, the react in the way described above for religious heretics. Because they don't have the scientific bona fides to rebut evidence scientifically.


 
Am I the only one who sees the irony of citing Ann Coulter and then condeming evolutionists as lacking the scientific bona fides to rebut evidence scientifically.

You are accusing your opponents of exactly what you are doing.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 13, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> > We do not engineer gravity. No anti-gravity machine, nor any idea of how such would work.
> 
> 
> 
> So we don't engineer around gravity ? WOW - I guess someone should tell all those planes , helicopters and other *aerodynamic machines* up in the sky right now - that they should get their heads out of the clouds and come back down to Earth.- Right ?


 
Newton and then Einstein developed formulas that approximate the effects of gravity but neither proposed a theory of how gravity worked.  Newton's worked in the everyday world we operate in and Einstein refined it for objects traveling very fast.  The one thing we know is that both are incomplete and they break down at quantum scales.  The Standard Model of physics postulates a "graviton" particle but none have yet to be found.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 13, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



The only rational position to hold is to be agnostic, as no proof exists for god being real, and no proof exists for god not being possible.


----------



## GreenBean (Aug 13, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > > We do not engineer gravity. No anti-gravity machine, nor any idea of how such would work.
> ...



Nor do we understand in it's entirety - Genetics - we don't know why or how every enzyme acts and interacts to produce the results it does.  We have a basic idea and from there we are able to produce , Genetically Modified Organisms.  

Gravity in the same essence - is not 100% understood - but we are able to manipulate it ,and yes we do know basically , how it works - or at least about 90% and are able to engineer around it .  So although it is true that there is no known anti-gravity machine - there is also no known machine that can create a complex organism.  Based on our knowledge we engineer around the obstacles. 

So getting back on track to the original post from several weeks ago  that someone saw fit to ressurrect



> And your comment re:Gravity - uh sorry to burst your bubble - but Gravity is a fact , and uh yes but I'm sorry they do understand how it works......You must be a Liberal - Right ?



*Stands *   - But I do thank your well informed opinion - are you trying to verbally *engineer around the obstacles * that stand in the way of your opinions ? - I know how you guys just hate when facts get in the way of your opinions.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 13, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Agnosticism simply accepts that we don't know, it does not preclude belief one way or the other.  But I do concur the only truly rational position is neutrality.

However, I would offer that this is an unattainable ideal.  It sounds good, but fails to take into account that we are talking about people.  I seriously doubt it is possible to not hold beliefs on one side of the issue or the other.  In every case where I have met someone who claimed to hold no such beliefs it took only a few minutes to determine they were brimming over with beliefs.  

To claim that Atheism is not religious by nature is absurd.  It is entirely religious.  It makes absolutely no sense outside of a religious context.  It is a pure belief system.  The problem modern Atheists are having is they are trapped in their own dogma.  They can't simply say they believe there is no God (a perfectly acceptable conclusion) because it has been written that they have no such beliefs.  So they ignore the obvious in favor of the dogma.  Rather than presenting objective evidence (of which they have none) we hear the same tired clichés and unsupported claims of intellectual superiority.

We all believe what we believe.  I'm not sure we actually have power over that to any significant extent.  The trick is to understand when we are engaged in belief and differentiate between it and knowledge.  Atheists have no more capacity to do that than Theists.  They are no more rational than Theists.  They are no less inclined to proselytizing than Theists.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 13, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Gravity in the same essence - is not 100% understood - but we are able to manipulate it ,and yes we do know basically , how it works - or at least about 90% and are able to engineer around it.


 
You're confusing cause and effect.  We can readily see and measure the effects of gravity, that is how engineers design planes and everything else.  We can NOT manipulate it, no one can turn it on or off or adjust its force.

We can't see gravity, only measure its effect on our world.  Evolution is similar in that we can't easily see it directly but we can see the effects it has on the fossil record and the biology of living organisms.


----------



## GreenBean (Aug 13, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Gravity in the same essence - is not 100% understood - but we are able to manipulate it ,and yes we do know basically , how it works - or at least about 90% and are able to engineer around it.
> ...





> We can NOT manipulate it, no one can turn it on or off or adjust its force.



Zero Gravity for Zero Dollars: Best Student Discount Ever








I get your point - well put - but slightly flawed .  I believe that we had here was a failure to communicate [Some men ya just can't reach] - the differences are purely semantical and not worth deviating from the OP> * Thanks.*


OT: [MENTION=37752]PratchettFan[/MENTION] - I see you've improved since last time I checked -good work .  You can take the dunce hat off now - regards.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 13, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



I said that people who believe in an omnipotent God believe everything is possible.

If you don't believe in unicorns then you're like the atheist who doesn't believe in God, i.e., according to you,

irrational.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 13, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> [
> 
> 
> no....I didn't set the standard for atheists.....they did.....they say that believing something which cannot be proven is irrational.....



What do you think the definition of rationality is that makes the above statement false?


----------



## BillyP (Aug 13, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



I don't have any personal feelings one way or the other, although I seriously doubt that there's a god who punishes people for not obeying a book, that's totally ludicrous. If there's someone who made the universe fine, if not, don't care. Why do people even care so much?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 13, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Hardly.  There is a very big difference between believing in something for which there is no evidence, and not believing in something for which there is no evidence.

Back to what I mentioned.  Is it equally rational to believe that man cannot fly like a bird and to believe that man can fly like a bird?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



A wonderful explanation... in that it qualifies the acceptance of "Humans cannot fly" by requiring that 'for humans to fly, they must flap their arms, which are not wings, thus humans cannot fly like birds'.

In fact, humans fly all the time... yet your rejection says otherwise because it specifically rules out alternative means of flight, by humans.  Demonstrating perfectly the irrational basis of the anti-theists, who claim God does not exist, because they have no understanding of the composition of God and reject any potential composition beyond the narrow confines of their innumerable rationalizations.

Thank you for a fine contribution.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



that's the fourth time you have misstated what I believe.....I'm not going to bother correcting you again, but I do want to point at your post and tell everyone you're an idiot......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



/boggle.....please read the post you have quoted for the answer to your question.....


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



I can show you a human being.  I can give all of his measurements and you can use that objective evidence to arrive at valid conclusions as to his ability to flap his arms and fly.  Show me your evidence about God.

If you define an Atheist as someone who lacks beliefs about God, then you are not an Atheist.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 13, 2014)

BillyP said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > My suggestion is don't accept macro-evolution in the first place. *Creation is the obvious option.*
> ...



You reject the Bible based on an assumption that the Bible is a myth. You are only lying to yourself.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 
(2 Peter 3:5)


----------



## BillyP (Aug 13, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



Prove to me that the bible isn't just myths, but without simply quoting it.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




I never said I rejected science. That is your presupposition. I like science but despise pseudo-science. I don't like all those fake drawings, fairy tales, and anthropological hoaxes in attempt to make people think that there is actually some science to evolutionism. I just don't have the faith you do to believe in evolutionism. 

According to evolution, you must believe that you came from a rock and that your brain is nothing more than a sack of chemicals. Therefore if macro-evolution were true (which it is not), you would not be able to trust your conclusions.

If you were a creature that was intelligently designed by a Creator with the purpose then you would be able to live, breath, eat, feel, touch smell, have emotions, design, think, observe, create, and process logical computations. Let's see, is that the case??? Yep, it sure is. Another piece of evidence in favor of the Creationist view point.

Okay, your conclusions don't line up with the rest of logical thinking humanity which believes in Creation, but that is because you willfully reject reality as Peter says in 2 Peter 3:5 and Paul states in Romans 1:20-21. Once again you serve as yet another empirical data point proving the pinpoint accuracy of the Bible if that is what you seek.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 13, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



The fact that many people believe in creationism is not scientific support for creationism having occurred.

Your belief is reliant on the fundamentally implausible assumption that the earth's living creatures appeared suddenly, fully formed, out of nowhere, in an instant.

There is no evidence for that whatsoever.  To call that a scientific theory is to embrace pseudo-science at its worst.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 13, 2014)

BillyP said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



No one has proved to you that you evolved from a banana or a rock, yet you believe in evolutionism. You just simply believe in evolutionism because you want to. It gives you a convenient excuse to continue living a sinful lifestyle. In fact, you and millions of other humans are performing a validation of the Bible each day.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 
(Romans 1:20)

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 
(Romans 1:25)

You see, in science, you have a hypothesis which provides your statement of what you think is true. From that you test that hypothesis to see if it is indeed true or not. Therefore, one must quote the Bible, because the Bible provides the framework for the hypothesis.

Prophetically, the Bible has met every prophecy it has made with pinpoint accuracy. 

Historically, the Bible is the most scrutinized book in history and yet it continues to prove itself correct time and time again. Why do you think the Muslims stopped the Jews from archeological digs around the temple mount. 

Scientifically, the Bible states that there are paths to the sea (Psalm 8) and sure enough this is true. The Bible also states that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11). Up until ~120 years ago, the practice of "blood letting" was considered "science" and as a result, many people died. The Bible states in Leviticus 15:13 "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean." It was not until years after the death of Ignaz Semmelweis that the medical world would accept the concept set forth by the Bible. Sadly, Mr. Ignaz Semmelweis was committed to an insane asylum after trying so hard to prove to the "scientific community" of proper hand washing procedures. Despite the overwhelming evidence, the doctors refused to accept his recommended practices which were found to cut the death rate from 30% to 1%. *Got to love the "scientific community" which is far from open minded.* Jonah 2:6 speaks of mountains on the ocean's floor yet it was not until recently that "modern science" discovered this to be true. In Genesis 17:12, Moses conveys God's instruction for every man child to be circumcised at eight days old. According to medical science, the eight day is the only day in a humans life that the prothrombin is above 100%. Moses certainly didn't learn this from the secular Egyptian "scientists". 

I could go on and on, but it is not proof that you need. The "scientists" in Semmelweis' day had plenty of proof. They just were "offended" at the truth and found it highly inconvenient at the cost of tremendous human life. What you need is a change of heart. 

But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, *Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed*. 
(John 20:24-29)


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 13, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



As some atheist put it, it's not for theists to define what atheists are.  An atheist is quite simply someone who does not include God on the list of things he believes in.  That is not a belief system.

An atheist does not have to produce an argument for why he doesn't believe in God beyond simply pointing out that there is no actual tangible evidence for the existence of God.

Why atheists are so reviled for not believing in God is not their fault.  If an atheist believes in no God, and a Christian believes in one, why would the Christian have the high ground by any measure?

What of the religions that believe in many gods?  Should they revile Christians for being selective believers, 

while denying the existence of the other gods of those other religions?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 13, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



You do realize that a story in a book whose veracity cannot be proven is not either scientific fact or theory, don't you?

'Because it's in the Bible' is not substantive support for an argument.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 13, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



I'm asking for your definition of rationality.  That is not in your post.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



agreed.....that's why God created dictionaries....so we could figure out what words mean.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Why atheists are so reviled for not believing in God



atheists aren't reviled for not believing in God...they are reviled for being assholes who file law suits all the time.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


????....you can't figure it out from the definition of irrationality?......


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



The only evidence we have is of fully formed creatures that adapt to their surroundings giving rise to minor changes over time. This is what is found in nature and what is also stated in the Bible and the position held by Creation Scientists. There is no such thing as macro-evolution. Evolutionism is a fairytale at best. Regardless of the truth, some people still cling to evolutionism as much as they cling to Santa.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...


----------



## konradv (Aug 13, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> The only evidence we have is of fully formed creatures that adapt to their surroundings giving rise to minor changes over time. This is what is found in nature and what is also stated in the Bible and the position held by Creation Scientists. There is no such thing as macro-evolution. Evolutionism is a fairytale at best. Regardless of the truth, some people still cling to evolutionism as much as they cling to Santa.



I'll believe that when you can adequately explain the fossil record.  It clearly shows increasing complexity and change over time.  That alone precludes creation as set forth in the Bible and does nothing to prove Intelligent Design beyond the way the general laws of science are laid out to allow evolution to occur.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 13, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Prophetically, the Bible has met every prophecy it has made with pinpoint accuracy.



 The Bible was written down decades after the prophecies were "fulfilled" with the goal of showing how Jesus fulfilled them.  With that kind of arrangement anyone could be an accurate prophet.  A prime example is a birth narrative, convoluted to bring Jesus to Bethlehem, birthplace of King David, based on a census.  Bizare


----------



## konradv (Aug 13, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Prophetically, the Bible has met every prophecy it has made with pinpoint accuracy.
> ...



A Roman census that no one can verify, despite the fact that they kept good records!!!


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I'm not defining what an Atheist is.  I am just saying that you don't meet your definition.  

To use your analogy, just because you define a human being as an animal which can flap its arms and fly does not mean you can do it.  If just means your definition is wrong.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 13, 2014)

konradv said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



Where would you go if you had to go to the home of your family 1,000 years before?   How many generations lived in those 1,000 years and which of your ancestors would you consider the home and go to?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 13, 2014)

konradv said:


> It clearly shows......



that is your profession of faith.....


----------



## konradv (Aug 13, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > It clearly shows......
> ...



You're confusing faith with deductive logic.  I'm NOT just taking someone's word, I'm using my brain to examine the evidence.  If that's not a way to truth, IMO, you're saying God lies to us and we cannot believe the evidence of our senses.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 14, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



I am stating that those believing in evolutionism are doing so in blind faith. There is no evidence that evolutionism is true. Evolutionism is like any other other religious cult. Those high up in the ranks are just playing the shell game because they know they don't have the truth, while the underlings blindly accept what the "scientists" present them without verifying it for themselves or are just too afraid to point out that the king is indeed naked.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 14, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



What evidence are you basing your observation on and what conclusions are you drawing from that evidence? Could you please list them out for me.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 14, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Prophetically, the Bible has met every prophecy it has made with pinpoint accuracy.
> ...



You are proving that you don't attempt to verify what the Bible says for yourself, but rather look for any anti-Biblical literature that you can find in order to fuel your rejection of God so that you can continue to live your life the way you want to.

So which one is it. The Bible is accurate because it was written after the fact or it is inaccurate because it is an old book. Make up your mind. It cannot be both if you are using any bit of logic.

The Four gospels are written with a hepatic structure and unique word structure such that modern day computers would struggle to interwoven complexity seen within the Gospels. 



alang1216 said:


> A prime example is a birth narrative, convoluted to bring Jesus to  Bethlehem, birthplace of King David, based on a census.  Bizare



And your point with this is???


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 14, 2014)

konradv said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > The only evidence we have is of fully formed creatures that adapt to their surroundings giving rise to minor changes over time. This is what is found in nature and what is also stated in the Bible and the position held by Creation Scientists. There is no such thing as macro-evolution. Evolutionism is a fairytale at best. Regardless of the truth, some people still cling to evolutionism as much as they cling to Santa.
> ...



Or things such as trees spanning vertically through millions of years worth of layers.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 14, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



Relentless in your willfull ignorance.

Natural selection is a fact.  There is no such thing as "evolutionism".  You guys just make things/definitions up as you go along attempting to define that which you are too ignorant to absorb as the work of the devil or similar such nonsense.

Christianity is a house of cards.  One false premis piled upon another.  You made up a god then made up god's words and backed the idea/scam with false witnesses.


----------



## konradv (Aug 14, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



DNA and fossils, you know, the evidence you ignore and pretend doesn't exist.  IMO, it's blasphemous that you would treat the brain God gave you that way.  He may be the Creator, but evolution is the agency of His creation.  Beyond "let there be light"(The Big Bang), Genesis is an allegory written down by men who didn't understand the intricacies of science that we do today.


----------



## konradv (Aug 14, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



Please explain what that's supposed to mean.  As far as I know, trees don't live millions of years.  If that's not what you mean, you need to be more precise with your argument.  Just because you don't believe the science, doesn't mean that I won't demand your thesis employ scientific precision.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 14, 2014)

Vestigiality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


THE LIGHT said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


 
NO EVIDENCE!!!  There is a boatload of evidence from biology and geology.  You may not find it convincing because you refuse verify it for yourself and blindly accept what you've been told about science by non-scientists.

Verify this evidence for yourself: Vestigiality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 14, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


 
I have read and studied it and believe that to call the Bible either accurate or inaccurate is to fundamentally misunderstand it.  It is a work of theology compiled from the work of many authors over millenia.  The prophesies fulfilled were an attempt to link the old and new testaments through the life of Jesus.  It didn't matter to the NT writers that these were not true history, very little history of Jesus' life is known, it only mattered that a theological case be make to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 14, 2014)

konradv said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


 
I suspect he refers to fossilized trees that have remained vertical.  The explainatin is simple really, trees put down roots into soil and rock layers that are already there.  If they're millions of years old the tree is found within a very old layer.  If the trees are buried in a flood they might remain vertical and be covered by younger layers.  No mystery really unless you're looking for anything to show evolution is false.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 14, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



Nobody can prove that we evolved from a banana or a rock, because we didn't. And proving the bible is real by quoting it means you have nothing. Mountains under water? A fucking 5 year old could have deduced that, you see mountains on land next to water, it only makes sense that the mountains continue under water. 
Circumcision? Not necessary and just genital mutilation, like we try to stop Africans from doing to their women.
Jesus coming back? No proof, just a made up story.
But the main thing is that the bible has nothing to do with a potential creator, because seriously, the concept of a god punishing people for not following a book is totally dumb.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 14, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



There is a false premise at work all throughout this and that is that an atheist cannot acknowledge that there might be supernatural beings,

because if he does he automatically becomes an agnostic,

the implication being that 'atheist' and 'agnostic' are mutually exclusive.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Why atheists are so reviled for not believing in God
> ...



You call them irrational for not believing in God.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 14, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



no, not at all....I'm saying you're lying to yourself about the evidence of your senses.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 14, 2014)

konradv said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


but DNA and fossils are evidence of God's creation....unless you have some proof you haven't mentioned.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 14, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> Vestigiality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> ...



can you prove to me that something is a vestige of a previous ancestor and not just the way God created the creature?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 14, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



well no....and everyone reading this forum except you is already aware of that.....for some reason you aren't bright enough to understand that even though its been explained to you several times.....I suspect the reason you can't is that you're an atheist......they don't tend to be the brightest......


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 14, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



No, the false premise is that an Atheist lacks beliefs.  In the absence of evidence (and I have yet to see any evidence) any position is a belief.  The only non-belief based position which one can have without evidence is neutrality.  You have stated that you are not neutral.  Therefore, you do not lack beliefs.  So either the definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.

You logic runs thus:  An Atheist lacks beliefs.  I am an Atheist.  Therefore, I lack beliefs.  But the same logic can state:  A human can fly by flapping his arms.  I am a human.  Therefore, I can flap my arms and fly.  

I don't dispute the logic, but I certainly dispute the initial premise.


----------



## Youch (Aug 14, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!
> 
> I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.
> 
> ...



Non-sense!  Adaptation has been proven in many species.  It is illogical to assert that what is true for some species isn't true for others, in this context.  The strongest and fastest and smartest, in nature, are the one's that get to mate, eat, hold territory, etc..., and the slowest and weakest and dumbest, do not.  This is but one example of adaptation. The white moth that necessarily turned black due to all the soot during the Industrial Revolution in England, is but another.

Interesting to note....that humans, mostly western (modern) humans, are now largely living OUTSIDE of nature, in that the slowest, weakest and dumbest are not only allowed to survive and breed, but are rewarded for doing so by way of welfare and other forms of unnatural support.....in this way, our gene pool is NOT a function of adaptation, and is NOT improving, but instead stagnation, perversion and atrophy (so to speak).  This explains a great deal about our current condition.  Res Ipsa Loquitur.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Vestigiality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


 
That is the absolute weakest argument possible but of course there is no refuting it.  If you're OK with a God who designs junk into his creations.  Junk that, somehow fits right into the theory of common descent, that's up to you.  I would prefer my omnipotent being to be neither stupid nor deceiptful.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 14, 2014)

Youch said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!
> ...



interesting theory.....does that explain the recent rise in the number of atheists?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 14, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



???....asking you to prove your claim is a weak argument?.....even when you can't?.....


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
I made no claim, I merely presented evidence that fits into evolution and seems to raise questions about creationism.  Saying maybe God did it is the weakest argument possible for anything.  It's like me saying Zeus or ET did it.  Impossible to prove it didn't happen that way but there is no evidence for it and it flys in the face of evidence against it.

I'll take your non-response as admission that you're OK with a God who designs junk into his creations or is deceiptful.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 14, 2014)

I don't reject the Bible.
Love thy neighbor, take care of your body, do not judge, treat everyone the same, forgive and forget.
Those are great things.
Most Christians ignore them most of the time. 
Persecute gays, never forgive and judge thy neighbor.
And jump on the anti science bandwagon because of a lack of real faith.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 14, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



you claimed vestiges were evidence.....I asked you to prove it......you ran......deal with it......


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Are you saying vestige features are not evidence? They are. Are they proof of evolution? They are not. You are the one that refuses to deal with it. 

Why don't you admit that you put your faith above anything. Including your own eyes.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 14, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



lol dude.....vestiges are evidence of what?......because of your faith, which you put before your own eyes you believe them to be evidence of evolution......"oh, why should whales have bones in their flippers unless they used to be legs"......how about they have bones in their flippers because bones add support and allow them to swim better.......


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Actually those old hip bones that prove they use to walk on land are now used to support the whales huge penis that can find the female whale's vagina from just about any angle.  It is a very large and flexible penis.  PBS is doing a whole show on animal sex.  

So any questions you have, ask science.  They have the answers.  Maybe not all the answers but certainly a lot more and better answers than your church has.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 14, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> I don't reject the Bible.
> Love thy neighbor, take care of your body, do not judge, treat everyone the same, forgive and forget.
> Those are great things.
> Most Christians ignore them most of the time.
> ...



I'm an atheist and I live by those rules too.  Funny my one grandmother died and my mom and her sister split everything evenly.  Then my other grandmother died and my aunt stole  all the money from my dad.  She's the biggest bible thumper there is and she takes the bible stories literally too.  

Why is she such a hard core christian?  Because its a free pass for her evil ass to get into heaven.  Doesn't matter she's a thief.  We're all sinners, right?  Believing in god is all she thinks that matters.  So this evil bitch thinks she's going to heaven and my dad who's a good person but doesn't buy into christianity is going to hell?  I doubt that.  

Oh and my dad isn't really an atheist.  He believes like boss that "there has to be something"  I try to explain to him there doesn't have to be but he says how could all this be?  The world is too perfect he says.  We need air, water, two arms, a heart, man & woman, chicken and cows to eat, the sun, etc.  He says it's too impossible to think that there is no god.  He's so dumb.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 14, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't reject the Bible.
> ...



Neighbor of mine for 25 years for many years had an ugly ass wife, demanding, stubborn, set in her ways and always complained about a "bad back", would not work and selfish. He remained married to her and attempted to help her as he believed that was his duty as a husband and he gave her the benefit of the doubt. I live in the deep south and have many acres. I live in an area where everyone has at least 10-20 acres. Suburbia sort of as a mall is 5 miles down the road but this used to be rural. Most all of my neighbors are real religious and I am a believer. One 10 acre lot was left on the road undeveloped and it went up for sale. It was over run with kudzu and was an eye sore. Many years back we had an elderly couple with no kids both get cancer at same time. Another woman her husband ran off with another woman and left the 40 year old wife with 4 young kids. One week back then both the elderly folks with cancer had to go to the doctor and had no ride, I had a wood chip lodge in my thigh cutting wood where the kudzu had taken over and a large tree with ice on it fell across the driveway so that the woman with 4 kids could not leave the property during an ice storm where we had no power.
Called all around the neighborhood and the neighbor with the sorry ass wife was the only one to offer 100% assistance.
He cut the tree up with me so the woman with 4 kids could go stay at a relatives house. He helped me take the elderly couple to the Dr., we each took one and when I lodged the wood chip in my thigh I had my cell phone and he took me to the ER.


While drinking a few beers that Saturday night I stated "Thank God that wood chip did not hit me in the face. Thanks for helping me with the Woods to take them to the Dr. Can we say a prayer for them?" 
He said "I am an atheist and do not pray"

Few years after that he divorced his wife and married another woman and is a happy man. Gave the first wife what she wanted and found out in the divorce proceedings she had a large trust fund she never told him about and he did not ask for any of it as he believed she needed it for her health care. 

Best neighbor I have ever had.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 15, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


 
The flipper bones are not vestigial, they clearly serve a purpose.  The vestigial structures are clearly a pelvis and femur that no longer serve their original function.  I don't know about them supporting the penis, that may be why they still exist.  





There are plenty of other examples, including a bunch in man himself:




Why exactly did God design man with nipples?  That one I've never figured out.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 15, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



so basically a whale's penis is more flexible than your mind?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 15, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



????....are your's dead?.....


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 15, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Why exactly did God design man with nipples? That one I've never figured out.
> ...


 
You obviously enjoy yours more than I do but what about man's other vestigial features? Do you enjoy your goose bumps as much?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 15, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



lol.....and what do you think goose bumps are a vestige of......the goose feathers we used to have?.....


----------



## Youch (Aug 15, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



It is not a theory.

As to your question, I would have to say, yes.  The more humans live outside the norms of nature, the less likely they are to be attached to nature, and religion.  I think the evidence bears this out, although causation is a tricky thing.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 15, 2014)

Jesus could come back and tell us evolution was God's plan.
And the deniers would call Jesus a liar.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 15, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Believe it or not, male humans can lactate just like women.

Male lactation: Can a 33-year-old guy learn to breast-feed?
"The Bible provides one in Numbers 11:12, where Moses complains to God about the difficulties of watching over the freed slaves in the Sinai wilderness: "Have I begotten them, that you should say to me, Carry them in your bosom, as a nursing father bears the sucking child  ?" (There's a more literal reference in the Talmud.)"
Strange but True: Males Can Lactate - Scientific American
Male lactation: men who naturally produce milk! - BabyCenter


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 15, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
When you're cold or stressed out, your arrector pili are the smooth muscle fibers that contract involuntarily to give you "goose bumps." If you're a furry woodland creature, this can provide insulation (thick, standing fur traps air between the erect hair follicles, helping the animal retain heat), or make you look bigger (which can mean the difference between being eaten and being passed over for less troublesome prey, a particularly good example being a porcupine). Since most humans aren't hairy enough to fit the "furry woodland creature" bill, our arrector pili provide neither of these benefits.


----------



## konradv (Aug 15, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Am I?  How can you prove that?  I'm not the only one that should have to prove my statements.


----------



## konradv (Aug 15, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



True, they can be evidence of creation, but evolution is evidence for how He went about creation.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 15, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


So you guys agree that the bible is crap? Cool.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 15, 2014)

BillyP said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



On science it is.
On the teachings of Jesus to love thy neighbor, do not judge and respect others it is what I follow.


----------



## Steven_R (Aug 15, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



There's a lot of good stuff in the Good Book, but a science text it ain't.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 15, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



There's no need to have a meltdown.

You invented a strawman atheist so you can call him irrational.

There is nothing irrational about not believing in supernatural beings such as Gods.  There is everything irrational about believing in supernatural beings such as Gods.

It is good to see though that you have finally conceded that it is perfectly rational not to believe in God.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 15, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



I don't where you get 'lacks beliefs' from when we are talking about a single belief.

The atheist does not believe in God.  If he becomes dogmatic about it, to the point of insisting with certainty that God cannot exist, then he becomes irrational.

The believer believes in God.  If his belief is also dogmatic, to the point of insisting with certainty that God exists, he then is being irrational.  

However, the belief in God, even with the concession that God might not exist, is irrational because there is no evidence of God.  That is a harsh reality but it is true.

Faith is the alternative to rationality.  It should not compete with rationality;  it is not meant to.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 15, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Why atheists are so reviled for not believing in God
> ...



This doesn't make any sense. 

Those free from faith have no other choice than to file suit in defense of their civil liberties when theists hostile to those civil liberties seek to conjoin church and state in violation of the First Amendment. 

If you and other theists want the lawsuits to end then simply stop attempting to codify your subjective religious dogma into secular law, attempts which are in fact repugnant to the Constitution. 

Its solely your decision.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 15, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



God does not exist as perceived by theists: as an omnipotent extra-terrestrial entity that hears prayers and intercedes on the behalf of mortals on earth. 

God does exist as a creation of man, as an idea, as a component of religion, and as a metaphor for the collective good of humankind or the like. 

But god in fact does not exist as an all-knowing deity issuing moral edicts all must obey, or absent that where sinners are subject to some punitive measures.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 15, 2014)

Youch said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...



I think so too.....the slowest, weakest and dumbest are better able to survive now.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 15, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



I can prove it by pointing out there are multiple ways the same evidence can be evaluated....if you were correct, we would all have to come to the same conclusions that you did......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 15, 2014)

BillyP said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



odd.....I only remember agreeing that your argument was crap......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 15, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> There is nothing irrational about not believing in supernatural beings such as Gods.



true....the irrationality comes from your arguments.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 15, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Those free from faith have no other choice than to file suit in defense of their civil liberties when theists hostile to those civil liberties seek to conjoin church and state in violation of the First Amendment.



sure they do.....they could turn the other cheek.....


----------



## GreenBean (Aug 15, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



That's basically what I said 15 pages back - but the religiophobes won't have it -Religion and ancient knowledge has to be wrong at all costs to fit within thier narrow concepts of reality.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 15, 2014)

> Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.



This is ignorant nonsense, of course. 

As a fact of Constitutional law evolution is not religion, false or otherwise. See:_ Edwards v. Aguillard_ (1987).


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 15, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing irrational about not believing in supernatural beings such as Gods.
> ...



My arguments remain unrefuted.  

question:

Is it irrational to believe that there are 72 virgins waiting for you in heaven?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 15, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Just for review.  The poster above is defining irrationality as not believing in something that you cannot prove doesn't exist.

By that measure, there is no such thing as a rational person, since I doubt that you can find a person whose only disbeliefs are proven.

For a short list, this poster is saying you are irrational if:

you don't believe in the existence of Big Foot.

you don't believe in teleportation.

you don't believe in the recently mentioned 72 virgins.

you don't believe in psychic powers.

you dont believe that there are aliens from other planets living amongst us.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 15, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


no.....just irrational to believe they will be in your favorite choice of species and gender......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 15, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



just for review....the poster above loves to demonstrate he has difficulty in reading comprehension....if you can think of a better way of getting him to understand this, help me explain it to him......


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 16, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



That is because those were not "old hipbones" to begin with. They are functioning just as they were intended to function. There is NO evidence to suggest they were hipbones. It is all in your imagination. In fact, that is what evolutionists condemn Creationists for is they say we "don't have an imagination." Well, pardon me, but I thought science was about observing the physical proof, not making up fairy tales. The very thing you accuse creationists of having is the very thing you base your theory on. 

Just because evolutionists are stupid, doesn't mean that there is such a thing as a vestigial organ. Evolutionists just invoke the vestigial card to hide the fact that they are too stupid to know what the body part's function actually is.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 16, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Hey, don't argue with me, argue with the scientists who said it.  I wondered the very same thing.  I thought, "how do they know that for sure".

But one thing I will tell you is if they say it is true, they probably have 1000 reasons to believe what they believe.  Good sound rational reasons why they either THEORIZE or KNOW.  

Are you suggesting science is wrong that we didn't all originally come from the water or that whales once walked?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 16, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Who should I believe, your theists who  and are  or science?

The evolution of whales

This is because whales evolved from walking land mammals whose backbones did not naturally bend side to side, but up and down.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 16, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



initially I would suggest you are wrong for pretending science says that we originally came from water or that whales once walked....science doesn't say that.....some scientists and all atheists say that.....science itself just collects data and the data collected does not prove what you claim.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 16, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



you can believe anything you want......just stop pretending its science.....


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 16, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I know you are not suggesting it. You are just blindly believing what the prophets of evolutionism tell you.



> But one thing I will tell you is if they say it is true, they probably  have 1000 reasons to believe what they believe.  Good sound rational  reasons why they either THEORIZE or KNOW.


And those thousand "solid" reasons will fold like a $2 suitcase because they are just excuses for their vain imaginations.



> Are you suggesting science is wrong that we didn't all originally come from the water or that whales once walked?


No, no that is a fairytale for adults. I don't disagree with science. I disagree with the Prophets of Evolutionism.

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."~Richard Dawkins


----------



## konradv (Aug 16, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> I know you are not suggesting it. You are just blindly believing what the prophets of evolutionism tell you.
> 
> I don't disagree with science. I disagree with the Prophets of Evolutionism.



It isn't prophecy.  It's deductive reasoning.  If you really want to present creationism as a science, you're going to have to learn the difference.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



But that doesn't leave room for fairy tales.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 16, 2014)

konradv said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > I know you are not suggesting it. You are just blindly believing what the prophets of evolutionism tell you.
> ...



I am not talking about Creation Science right now. I am talking about the delusions of Evolutionism fairy tales.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 16, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



That is a nice coloring book drawing. But is just a fairy tale. I find it funny that you state that you don't want to believe theists because they are  in your eyes, but then you offer an article that you claim as "science" which just so happens to use intentional deceptions to brainwash people.

The article you quote appears to be a knock off of the 2001 National Geographic whale evolution article which is nothing more than fairy tales. Even the Smithsonian Institute has accused National Geographic of lying sensationalism:



> *National Museum of Natural History
> Smithsonian Institution
> Washington, D. C. 20560*
> 1 November 1999
> ...


Source: https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/sensationalistic-unsubstantiated-tabloid-journalism/


The field of paleontology is replete with intentional lies,  frauds and distortions. Archaeoraptor (as mentioned above) had many reasons by "scientists"  why it was true and explained the evolution of dinosaurs to birds yet  was found to be a hand crafted FRAUD. 

Pakicetus was declared to be a whale from a lone skull bone because it had cups on the molar teeth. The skeleton turned out to be in resemblance of a four legged wolf like creature. In fact, the fairy tale picture by evolutionist Carl Buell looks more like a large rat than anything else.





source: http://www.amnh.org/explore/news-blogs/on-exhibit-posts/the-first-whale-pakicetus

Ambulocetus similarly is a land creature that was hand drawn to look the way they wanted to brain wash you to think it was.

So to answer your question: You should believe God who is not a man that he should lie (Numbers 23:19).


----------



## konradv (Aug 17, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



I was also talking about evolution.  Deductive reasoning is not a delusion.  It's how we arrive at truth.  If you say the apparent age of the earth and the progression of the fossil record are delusions, then you're in effect saying that God lies to us.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 17, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



My disbelief in those items is rational because I have proof. The veracity of the Bible can and has been proven from which the Bible tells me that there is no such thing as 72 virgins awaiting one upon their death. Your disbelief, on the other hand, is irrational because you have nothing to base it on.



NYcarbineer said:


> For a short list, this poster is saying *you are irrational if:*
> 
> you don't believe in the existence of Big Foot.
> 
> ...



No, but Richard Dawkins does.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...








I know it's water... I know its water...


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 17, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.
> 
> 
> This is ignorant nonsense, of course.
> ...



Since when has the Constitution had anything to do with science?


----------



## konradv (Aug 17, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



So, no stellar reasoning, just juvenile rejoinders?  That's weak dude, just like "creation science".


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 17, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Jesus could come back and tell us evolution was God's plan.
> And the deniers would call Jesus a liar.



No, that will never happen, but the AntiChrist will show up and tell you he is GOD and you will buy it hook line and sinker.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



It doesn't take stellar reasoning to defeat your argument; just the simple truth. You cannot get the simplicity of the truth because your eyes are blinded. Call it what you will, but it is a known scientific FACT that our eyes play tricks on us.


----------



## konradv (Aug 17, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



Well tell us what the simple truth is.  So far there's no there, there.  Simply saying our eyes can be fooled, proves nothing.  We're talking millions of eyes over a couple of centuries.


----------



## hipeter924 (Aug 17, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus could come back and tell us evolution was God's plan.
> ...


Those that opppse the existence of a 'GOD' like anti-theists and non-deists wouldn't be deceived by an 'anti-Christ', but people who don't think for themselves and just follow a cult church like Westboro would be his perfect flock.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 17, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



*"A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory."*

According to your own account the man violated the teachings of the Bible and therefore is not a "good person."

The Bible says that if you even look at a woman with lust you are guilty of adultery. Moreover, not one of us can say that we have not lied.

"They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Romans 3:12

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23

And finally,

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one _point_, he is guilty of all." James 2:10

In fact there is one that came to pay for your sins that was despised, rejected, beaten, spit on, had his beard torn off, was hung naked, and crucified. Your sins and mine placed Jesus on that cross.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 17, 2014)

hipeter924 said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Yes, unfortunately there will be many that call themselves Christians that will follow the Anti-Christ. The spirit of antichrist (little "a") is already prevalent throughout society and churches today (1 John 4:3). Those claiming to be "good people" are prime examples of it.

And yes, unfortunately if you continue to reject Christ, you will accept the mark of the beast. He will present himself as a fleshly god that you can see with your eyes and will present lying signs and wonders. 

If you could see how ridiculously childish your sinful actions are you would say "that will never happen" or I would never do that", but because your eyes are blinded by lust you think it is perfectly normal.

Romans 1:19-24


> 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
> 
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
> 
> ...



Similarly it will be at the coming of the Anti-Christ (2 Thes 2):


> 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
> 
> 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
> 
> ...



I hope that you reconsider before that time, but if you don't, remember that I told you so.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 17, 2014)

Every time I see a post by GIS, especially this one I flashback to "Ladyhawke" and,

The drunken monk's trying to convince the "knight" about his revelation from God, how God's forgiven him for betraying the knight and his lady to which the knight replies, "God hasn't forgiven you. He's made you mad."


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > I know you are not suggesting it. You are just blindly believing what the prophets of evolutionism tell you.
> ...



odd, usually deductive reasoning involves facts and reason.......what is your new methodology?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



well no....God did not tell you there was a progression in the fossil record.....thus, he did not lie to you....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



In fact, God's never actually said anything to anyone.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 17, 2014)

hipeter924 said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



you may have a point....there ARE a lot of similarities between those who believe science has proven humans evolved from a single celled organism and those who follow the Rev. Phelps......you could break free if you looked at this "scientific" evidence with open eyes.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 17, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


odd, then how did he lie?.....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



I never said he did. Invisible people can't talk, everyone knows that.


----------



## konradv (Aug 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



You're being intellectually dishonest.  There's nothing new about what I'm saying.


----------



## konradv (Aug 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



If God created everything including my brain and the fossil record is laid out in an apparent progression that isn't true, yes, he does lie to us.  But most of us realize Genesis is an allegory, just as the parables of Jesus are not assumed to have happened exactly as He told them.


----------



## konradv (Aug 17, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



I thought the Bible was literally true?  If so he spoke to Adam, Abraham , Moses, etc.  Sorry, but that line of argument FAILS.  You can't say one part of the story is literally true in all its aspects, but then reject others at your convenience.


----------



## hipeter924 (Aug 17, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


 I like how you use the term reject, as I can't reject something that to me doesn't exist. But I don't see any empirical evidence sitting around that says that if there even is a god, that it has to be Christian. The Egyptian crocodile that gobbles people up in the afterlife was around several thousand years before Christianity even came on the scene. Hell doesn't scare me, nor do crocodile gods.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 17, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



lol....typical brainless atheist......joins in an argument, then pretends the argument has nothing to do with him......okay, you are not engaged in the argument......you have not, nor will you contribute anything to it......understood.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



there has to be....no one has ever demonstrated deductive reasoning on the issue before......what are the facts on which you base your conclusion?.....here's a single celled organism.....deductive reasoning tells you it evolved into a human being.....show us fact number one that starts the whole reasoning process......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



why?.....there are other alternatives.....for example, you could be lying to yourself and he has nothing at all to do with it......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



when he spoke to Adam, Abraham, Moses, etc., did he ever once say...."oh by the way, those fossils?.....they are in a progressive line of development".........


----------



## konradv (Aug 17, 2014)

postmodernproph said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > postmodernproph said:
> ...



Simple, DNA.


----------



## konradv (Aug 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



That wasn't the question.  It's possible, though.  Were all the conversations recorded?


----------



## konradv (Aug 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



It isn't just me.  You are also saying that millions over almost two centuries are having the same delusion.  If you believe that it's a delusion, you must have some evidence.  Please state it.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



It's all on 8 track in a secret vault in the Vatican. However, there is some distortion. Everything the snake said just comes out like a "hissing" noise.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



It's because you can't read. I wasn't the one who said god lied. But I may have said that he's a homo because he wanted Adam not to bang the chick and stay in homobliss heaven with him.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



The ability of two single cells, a sperm and an egg, to merge and eventually become a fully formed human being.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



Can you eliminate the possibility/probability that the Bible was simply a set of stories that were made up by human storytellers?


----------



## konradv (Aug 17, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



It obviously is a set of stories.  The Noah story is actually a retelling of what happened to Gilgamesh.  IMO, the Bible should be read for moral principles, NOT history or science.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> postmodernproph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



????.....from the existence of DNA you conclude that single celled organisms are proven to have evolved into human beings?.....how so?.....do you believe there had to be a change in the DNA between the first single celled creature and a creature capable of reproduction on a multicellular level (hint: such a change was in fact necessary).......how many levels of complexity were necessary to result in that change?........could that many levels of complexity have ever occurred in a single generation......if they could not, how did a third generation ever occur?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



those are questions YOU should be answering.....you're the one claiming God lied about the progression of fossils....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



the delusion is believing a static item, such as a fossil, is evidence of a transition between two other fossils......there is absolutely no way to prove that claim other than by assuming it to be true, then pointing at it and saying "and look here, just as we suspected all along, there it is!".......my evidence is that you believe it to be true without evidence......one may say its faith, but if you deny faith, it can only be delusion.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 17, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



glad to see you're staying in character as a typical brainless atheist....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 17, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



are you going on record as claiming the reproductive system is evidence of evolution?.....please bear in mind that argument has been raised before on this forum (actually, within the last few weeks)......if so, and assuming the adult is a homo sapiens, what is the species of the zygote it "evolved" from......and how long is the period of evolution in that instance.....is it all of the nine months, or is it just the first 48 hours?......


----------



## konradv (Aug 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



No I didn't.  I said for your view to be true that would bee the case.  I believe the fossil record tell the evolutionary theory and God didn't lie to us.  I count this as another case of you twisting words to muddy the waters without actually posting anything of substance that explains WHY you believe what you believe.  Instead you trying to tell me what I'm saying and what I believe.  Why is that?  Is it that you don't really have any good arguments or evidence?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 17, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



to the extent to which I am prepared to believe it true?.....of course......its called a faith choice....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Not an atheist either. Strike two.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



you said....


konradv said:


> If you say the apparent age of the earth and the progression of the fossil record are delusions, then you're in effect saying that God lies to us.


thus, you are claiming that it cannot be true that the progression of the fossil record is a delusion unless God is lying to us.....the simple fact is God has never told you the fossil record is progressive......thus, it may simultaneously be true that your claims about the fossil record are a delusion AND that God is not lying to us........it isn't that difficult to understand....why do I have to explain it to you?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 17, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



/shrugs.....you are on record as saying the God we have been discussing does not exist.....if you choose to believe in some other deity, it would be a subject for another thread.....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



I'm agnostic, no proof either way exists yet for a god. The only rational stance to have.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



You are the one making the claim that the fossils are in an apparent progression. Back to my picture....


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 17, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



An Agnostic is someone [a- (not or without) gnostic (knowledge)] without knowledge. 
An atheist is someone who is not a believer in God.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
(Psalms 53:1 KJV)

It is more rational to be an ignoramous than a blind fool, but it is more rational to find the truth than to be either an idiot or a blind fool.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 17, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Since you haven't found the truth, the only rational position is to say we don't know either way... Until we get proof either way.


----------



## konradv (Aug 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > postmodernproph said:
> ...



We're talking billions of years.  A lot of things can happen and we're just beginning to piece together the whole story.


----------



## konradv (Aug 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



It's not a delusion.  Millions have seen it over the years.  If there's a delusion involved, it's the refusal to accept the evidence of one's eyes.  If our eyes provide us with false testimony, as you say, whose fault is that.  I'm not saying that's the case however.  god does not lie to us and the fossil progression is truly there as so many have said.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



You wanted a fact from which you could deduce that evolution involved single cells becoming more complex to eventually become humans.

The zygote example is not to prove evolution, it's to prove that the right sort of chemical composition of a single cell, or in the zygote case two cells, can enable it to transform itself into something much more complex.


----------



## hazlnut (Aug 17, 2014)

We need a new forums for threads like this called "OH, for fucks sakes"....


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



So you can eliminate that possibility by a leap of faith, but not by rational argument.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 17, 2014)

I don't really see the reason for all the angst.

All life seeks to perpetuate itself, therefore, as environments change, life adapts.  

I suppose the problem rests within the assumption that humanity developed from lower species.  And the absence of a sound chain of evidence that supports that assumption.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter to us, but I think it likely that humanity was more likely established here than we evolved.  With Eden being where God put us.

But it doesn't matter to me.  If God grew us from Apes which grew out of fish, that works for me just fine.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 17, 2014)

BillyP said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



Not exactly. I have found the truth. It is called the Bible. You are still searching. Hopefully you will find it some day.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 17, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Yes, I have.


----------



## konradv (Aug 17, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Funny how you demand answers as to how we arrived at our beliefs, but haven't done so yourself.  Can you give us ANY scientific principle, data or theory which would help us see your side?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 18, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



odd....someone was just telling us it was the culmination of 200 years of accumulated wisdom.....and someone else just told me the proof was simple.....wait, that was you!........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 18, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



evidence should lead one from point A to point B.....its not supposed to get hazy in the middle and have you standing at point B shouting "and that's the way it works!"........


----------



## BillyP (Aug 18, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


I found a bible once cleaning out an upstairs room. Didn't know where it came from. I threw it out. Now THAT'S the truth. 

But c'mon man, a book written 2000 years ago full of mumbo jumbo describing things that may or may not have happened, since there's no proof to any of it. Do you really think that a creator of the universe would punish us for not following a book? Seriously, get a grip brah.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 18, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



yes....I did.....and you gave me reproduction instead of evolution......now do you have something that proves what I asked for.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 18, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



as you have....the difference is you pretend your leap is based on a rational argument, even though you cannot state it or demonstrate it.....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 18, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Ok, so you're against evolution, so did all the animals... and humans just pop into being fully formed? Or another way?


----------



## konradv (Aug 18, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



The story may not be complete, but the 200 years of wisdom points in one direction and it isn't towards creationism.  How about giving us some irrefutable evidence that it's true instead confirming my contention once again that you'll only denigrate my position because you have no real evidence of your own?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 18, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


I'm not against evolution....I am against ignorance.....that is why I'm arguing with people here about evolution instead of arguing with evolution.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 18, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



you see, the unavoidable problem is that 200 years of ignorance is not 200 years of wisdom.....I admit my position is a faith choice.....why won't you?......


----------



## BillyP (Aug 18, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



So you agree actually about the single cell evolving to a multi-cell organism? if not, how then did multis come about?


----------



## konradv (Aug 18, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



It's been stated and demonstrated repeatedly.  Your contention is a lie to cover up the fact that you have not and cannot show that creationism is true.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 18, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Science by definition cannot be based on faith.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 18, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...



no, I do not believe multicelled organisms evolved from single celled organisms.....I believe multicelled organisms were caused.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 18, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



do you believe the existence of an amphibious creature PROVES that a whale used to be a creature similar to an alligator?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 18, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



???...no one has said it was.....science is the observation, organization, and testing of physical data......what you believe about the origins of human beings is your faith choice.....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 18, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Like I just said, I believe what science has to say because science can't be based on faith, only facts.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 18, 2014)

BillyP said:


> Like I just said, I believe what science has to say because science can't be based on faith, only facts.



so you don't believe that humans evolved from single celled organisms......


----------



## Hollie (Aug 18, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> ???...no one has said it was.....science is the observation, organization, and testing of physical data......what you believe about the origins of human beings is your faith choice.....


The is no dogmatic, religious faith required to study the biology of life on the planet. Human ancestry is a rather complete history. Here's a hint: it goes back much further than 6,000 years.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 18, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> I'm not against evolution....I am against ignorance.....that is why I'm arguing with people here about evolution instead of arguing with evolution.....



_“Science adjusts it’s understanding based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”_ – Tim Minchin

There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.

Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.


----------



## konradv (Aug 18, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> I'm not against evolution....I am against ignorance.....that is why I'm arguing with people here about evolution instead of arguing with evolution.....


The notion that you think there's ignorance on my part is offensive.  You're just employing rhetorical double-talk.  You take it as a given that you aren't the ignorant one when, like you say about evolution, "that hasn't been determined yet".


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 18, 2014)

konradv said:


> The notion that you think there's ignorance on my part is offensive.  You're just employing rhetorical double-talk.  You take it as a given that you aren't the ignorant one when, like you say about evolution, "that hasn't been determined yet".



From the looks of things, the scientists are probably the ones I would go with.  The truth is atheists intelligence is off the charts.  We are more evolved than they are.  Think about it.  Two brains.  One can be fooled into believing a fairy tale and the other can not.  

Imagine what the rich politicians, corporations and churches do with people that easily manipulated.  

Sure religion does some good but not nearly enough.  God is a complete failure.  Failed with adam, failed with mosus, failed with Noah, we failed with Jesus and we're failing according to scripture because he's coming back again for sure.  The Jews fight the Arabs and we fight the arabs and Russians.  All you can do is SAVE YOURSELF and others.  Get others to convert.  And we need money.  God needs money bad.  Please send more money so we can spread the word amen.  God it is so easy when you control the media too.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 18, 2014)

konradv said:


> The story may not be complete, but the 200 years of wisdom points in one direction and it isn't towards creationism.  How about giving us some irrefutable evidence that it's true instead confirming my contention once again that you'll only denigrate my position because you have no real evidence of your own?



I think it's pretty well understood at this point that every society has their "creation" stories and that those stories are not to be taken literally.  We have science that tells us a much better more factual history of man and religion we can already see is evolving/preparing itself for the day its going to have to change its stories.  In the future Jesus and Ghandi will be taught as equals.  Both great men but nothing more.

God knows if/when the middle east will ever give up Mohammad.  That'll be 1000 years after we wake up.  We may have to fight a wholly war with them someday whether we believe or not.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 18, 2014)

BillyP said:


> So you agree actually about the single cell evolving to a multi-cell organism? if not, how then did multis come about?



Post believes in the wildly implausible scenario that all the earth's creatures came into being, out of nowhere, fully formed.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 18, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> yes....I did.....and you gave me reproduction instead of evolution......now do you have something that proves what I asked for.....



You asked for a starting point of fact as to how single celled organisms could evolve into multi-celled organisms.

The starting point for that is to prove that single cells are capable of becoming multi-celled.  Reproduction is one example that proves it. 

So what is your next requirement for proof that evolution is possible?  Proof of mutation?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 18, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The is no dogmatic, religious faith required to study the biology of life on the planet. Human ancestry is a rather complete history. Here's a hint: it goes back much further than 6,000 years.


hint: find out if someone believes it does before assuming "6000 years" wins an argument.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 18, 2014)

konradv said:


> The notion that you think there's ignorance on my part is offensive.  You're just employing rhetorical double-talk.  You take it as a given that you aren't the ignorant one when, like you say about evolution, "that hasn't been determined yet".


you're offended?.....I am crushed!......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 18, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Post believes in the wildly implausible scenario that all the earth's creatures came into being, out of nowhere, fully formed.


not true....I believe that you are one of earth's creatures.....I believe your mother carried you in her womb and that you came into being in a hospital.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 18, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> You asked for a starting point of fact as to how single celled organisms could evolve into multi-celled organisms.


yes I did.....you did not give me an example of a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism....


> Reproduction is one example that proves it.


we both know, it is not.....


----------



## cultsmasher (Aug 19, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!
> 
> I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.
> 
> ...


  GISMYS,
  You are so beyond clueless, it's incredible.  There is a documentary out there that you need to watch.  It's called "Religious."  If that doesn't wake you up, I know of a free ebook that will.  Just go to your browser and enter, "Our Holy Hell: The Causes, The Solutions."


----------



## konradv (Aug 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> you're offended?.....I am crushed!......



So, there's no Christian basis for your beliefs?  What religion are we talking about?  I may be reading the wrong origin story.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 19, 2014)

konradv said:


> It's not a delusion.  Millions have seen it over the years.  If there's a delusion involved, it's the refusal to accept the evidence of one's eyes.  If our eyes provide us with false testimony, as you say, whose fault is that.  I'm not saying that's the case however.  god does not lie to us and the fossil progression is truly there as so many have said.



It is not a delusion... It really is water.... my eyes tell me so...


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 19, 2014)

BillyP said:


> I found a bible once cleaning out an upstairs room. Didn't know where it came from. I threw it out. Now THAT'S the truth.
> 
> But c'mon man, a book written 2000 years ago full of mumbo jumbo describing things that may or may not have happened, since there's no proof to any of it.



Hardly mumbo jumbo. It is a book comprised of 66 books written by over 40 authors with one message which is the gospel of Jesus Christ. That God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son to die on a cross for the sins of the entire world that whosoever would call upon his name would be saved. He died and rose again that you and I might have eternal life if we accept Yashua as our Savior. He died on that cross of wood yet made the hill on which it stood. The nails held his hands to the cross not by friction but by his love for you and I. Those around him mocked him saying why doesn't he save himself. The answer is he gave his life so we might gain eternal life. His love is what held him to that cross.

Contrary to your statement, there IS prophetic, scientific, archeological, and historical proof for the Bible. The Bible is the most scrutinized book in history and yet with each day that passes, scientific findings come closer and closer to the Bible, archeologists discover more and more proof that things happened just as the Bible said they did, and prophecy continues to be fulfilled even as we speak. 

And that is just at the surface level. The veracity of the Bible is so solid that it has built in encryption, error checking and even error correcting measures that is arguably far better than modern computer code. The prophetic nature alone demonstrates its origin from outside the dimension of time. Moreover, the uniqueness of the word sets and the hepatic structure of the New Testament gospels can only be by the work product of a masterful designer inhabiting eternity just as the Bible claims.


I'm sorry to hear you threw away the Truth and with it true wisdom and knowledge. The Bible isn't just "a" book it is God himself before you (John 1:1). It is his love letter to you (John 3:16). It is the words of the Almighty (2 Timothy 3:16 & 2 Peter 1:21). It is Wisdom to those who seek it (Proverbs 1:5).

But don't worry, God didn't step out of eternity to die on a cross expecting a grand celebration and a warm welcome. He didn't set foot on this earth to love those who loved him and die for those who were righteous. No, he loved us first that we might love him seeing the endless depth of his love for us (1 John 4:19). For God IS love (1 John 4:8). He saved us out of our miserable despair and redeemed us through his Son. Though you turned your back on God he has not turned his back on you. Until you leave this physical earth, there is still hope for eternal life if you turn from your sins, repent and put your trust in Jesus Christ.




BillyP said:


> Do you really think that a creator of the universe would punish us for not following a book? Seriously, get a grip brah.



Do you believe that the physical laws of science work sometimes and not other times? God's spiritual laws govern the eternal dimension just as consistently as his physical laws govern this temporal dimension. It took scientists millions of dollars to discover that there are more than 10 dimensions when they could have taken the Bible's word for it and had a couple of million dollars left in their pocket.


----------



## konradv (Aug 19, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> It is not a delusion... It really is water.... my eyes tell me so...



So?  Just rinse, repeat_ ad infinitum_?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> no, I do not believe multicelled organisms evolved from single celled organisms.....I believe multicelled organisms were caused.....


Ahh. So the gods magically *poofed* multi celled organisms into existence and that resulted in the diversity of life on the planet in just 6,000 years?

Advocates of super-magical design must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why they think that the products of nature _must_ have been designed. To date, they have not done so and in fact, appeal instead to a wide array of nonsensical and unproven supernatural assertions. They have merely offered bad analogies and metaphors that appeal only to emotion and fear.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 19, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Hardly mumbo jumbo. It is a book comprised of 66 books written by over 40 authors with one message which is the gospel of Jesus Christ. That God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son to die on a cross for the sins of the entire world that whosoever would call upon his name would be saved. He died and rose again that you and I might have eternal life if we accept Yashua as our Savior. He died on that cross of wood yet made the hill on which it stood. The nails held his hands to the cross not by friction but by his love for you and I. Those around him mocked him saying why doesn't he save himself. The answer is he gave his life so we might gain eternal life. His love is what held him to that cross.
> 
> Contrary to your statement, there IS prophetic, scientific, archeological, and historical proof for the Bible. The Bible is the most scrutinized book in history and yet with each day that passes, scientific findings come closer and closer to the Bible, archeologists discover more and more proof that things happened just as the Bible said they did, and prophecy continues to be fulfilled even as we speak.
> 
> ...


The veracity of the bible? The world wasn't made in 6 days, and that's just the first page!
"God didn't step out of eternity to die on a cross", so now, god died on the cross?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 19, 2014)

konradv said:


> I may be reading the wrong origin story.


no....just reading it wrong.....and thinking, even worse....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Ahh. So the gods magically *poofed* multi celled organisms into existence and that resulted in the diversity of life on the planet in just 6,000 years?


no......but then I have corrected you about that dishonest representation of my beliefs nearly a dozen times already.....the problem isn't actually that you are wrong.....the problem is simply that you are not an honest person.....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> no......but then I have corrected you about that dishonest representation of my beliefs nearly a dozen times already.....the problem isn't actually that you are wrong.....the problem is simply that you are not an honest person.....


So what are your beliefs? How did multi-celled organisms come about?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 19, 2014)

BillyP said:


> So what are your beliefs? How did multi-celled organisms come about?


haven't you asked me that before?.....I know others have.....the answer is still the same.....I believe that multicelled organisms were caused.....

Holly knows that I am not a young earther....in truth, something like 12% of Christians believe that the earth is only 6000 years old.....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> haven't you asked me that before?.....I know others have.....the answer is still the same.....I believe that multicelled organisms were caused.....
> 
> Holly knows that I am not a young earther....in truth, something like 12% of Christians believe that the earth is only 6000 years old.....


Again you give a shrouded answer. Caused by what, god? Something else? You ashamed of your position?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 19, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> You asked for a starting point of fact as to how single celled organisms could evolve into multi-celled organisms.
> 
> The starting point for that is to prove that single cells are capable of becoming multi-celled.  Reproduction is one example that proves it.
> 
> So what is your next requirement for proof that evolution is possible?  Proof of mutation?



This is what frustrates me about USMB.  I'm not a scientist but I've seen enough science shows to know that there is an answer for all their questions.  I've even shown them that science has proven that something can come from nothing and they still argue that is not true.  I don't know if it is true but I believe the scientists before I believe theists who don't want to hear facts, logic and reasoning because those things go against what their book says.  I'm sorry guys but your book is out dated and full of errors.  

And so I don't know if/how/why a human first lived in water then crawled out and was a small mammal for millions of years before we became apes and then ultimately man.  I've seen shows that explain it but I can't repeat it all back.  And I know evolution is a theory but it is also a fact.  We may not know everything yet but it isn't us who claims we do know everything.  That's the theists.  And what proof do they have?  Their corrupt churches and the book it wrote 2000 years ago.  And I'm supposed to believe that?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 19, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> You asked for a starting point of fact as to how single celled organisms could evolve into multi-celled organisms.
> 
> The starting point for that is to prove that single cells are capable of becoming multi-celled.  Reproduction is one example that proves it.
> 
> So what is your next requirement for proof that evolution is possible?  Proof of mutation?



Many scientists and philosophers of science have described *evolution as fact and theory. F*_act_ in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 19, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> This is what frustrates me about USMB.  I'm not a scientist but I've seen enough science shows to know that there is an answer for all their questions.  I've even shown them that science has proven that something can come from nothing and they still argue that is not true.  I don't know if it is true but I believe the scientists before I believe theists who don't want to hear facts, logic and reasoning because those things go against what their book says.  I'm sorry guys but your book is out dated and full of errors.
> 
> And so I don't know if/how/why a human first lived in water then crawled out and was a small mammal for millions of years before we became apes and then ultimately man.  I've seen shows that explain it but I can't repeat it all back.  And I know evolution is a theory but it is also a fact.  We may not know everything yet but it isn't us who claims we do know everything.  That's the theists.  And what proof do they have?  Their corrupt churches and the book it wrote 2000 years ago.  And I'm supposed to believe that?


 
I think the problem is people keep asking for proof.  That is not how science works.  You hypothesize and test.  After enough evidence, you get a theory.  But you don't just stop there, you continue to test.  The theory is constantly questioned and modified as new information is obtained. 

In religion, you begin with an answer and that is the answer you must end with.  Any information which fits that answer is accepted as true.  Any information which does not is either modified to fit or rejected out of hand.  If you apply the mindset of religion to science, of course there will be conflicts.  The two things are not the same in any way.

So if you expect to stop being frustrated about this I suggest you get ready for the long haul.  You are never going to provide proof and proof is the only thing which will be accepted.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> not true....I believe that you are one of earth's creatures.....I believe your mother carried you in her womb and that you came into being in a hospital.....



How old was the first human when he appeared on the Earth?


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 19, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> How old was the first human when he appeared on the Earth?


 
Was there a first human?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 19, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> Was there a first human?



How could there not have been?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> no......but then I have corrected you about that dishonest representation of my beliefs nearly a dozen times already.....the problem isn't actually that you are wrong.....the problem is simply that you are not an honest person.....



Maybe you should just state for the record  how life occurred then.  And either stop telling us you've already done that, or refer us to the post where you did.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> yes I did.....you did not give me an example of a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism....
> 
> we both know, it is not.....



Do you know what 'starting point' even means?  

Cells can multiply.  That is fact.  Cells of one kind can produce cells of another kind.  That is fact.  Cells can mutate.  That is fact.  

What are the facts behind your claim that multi-celled organisms had to have begun life on Earth fully formed?


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 19, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> How could there not have been?


 
I don't know.  If there was, that meant that its parents weren't human and anyone it could possibly mate with would not have been human.  Perhaps the line which crosses to human isn't all that crisp.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 19, 2014)

BillyP said:


> The veracity of the bible? The world wasn't made in 6 days, and that's just the first page!
> "God didn't step out of eternity to die on a cross", so now, god died on the cross?



You seem so knowledgeable.  Were you there when God made the earth?


----------



## konradv (Aug 19, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> You seem so knowledgeable.  Were you there when God made the earth?



Is it really necessary?  One can infer from data.  If you say it's incorrect, you're saying God lies to us.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 19, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> This is what frustrates me about USMB.  I'm not a scientist but I've seen enough science shows to know that there is an answer for all their questions.  I've even shown them that science has proven that something can come from nothing and they still argue that is not true.  I don't know if it is true but I believe the scientists before I believe theists who don't want to hear facts, logic and reasoning because those things go against what their book says.  I'm sorry guys but your book is out dated and full of errors.
> 
> And so I don't know if/how/why a human first lived in water then crawled out and was a small mammal for millions of years before we became apes and then ultimately man.  I've seen shows that explain it but I can't repeat it all back.  And I know evolution is a theory but it is also a fact.  We may not know everything yet but it isn't us who claims we do know everything.  That's the theists.  And what proof do they have?  Their corrupt churches and the book it wrote 2000 years ago.  And I'm supposed to believe that?



Instead of analyzing the raw data for yourself, you "believe" evolutionists because you don't want to think for yourself. If you looked at the facts for yourself rather than believing the outright delusional lies in evolutionism propaganda then you would see the simple truth. Instead you have chosen to be brainwashed. 

"All thinking men are atheists." — Ernest Hemingway

"[Hemingway] pushed two shells into the twelve-gauge Boss shotgun ...put the end of the barrel into his mouth, pulled the trigger and blew out his brains" (source Wikipedia)

Pardon me, but if that is smart,  I'm glad I'm not that smart.



sealybobo said:


> I'm sorry guys but your book is out dated and full of errors.



Full of errors? You have read it for yourself? or listened to more propaganda?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 19, 2014)

konradv said:


> Is it really necessary?  One can infer from data.  If you say it's incorrect, you're saying God lies to us.



Yes, to make an assertion like that. The data proves the Bible if you think for yourself.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 19, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Yes, to make an assertion like that. The data proves the Bible if you think for yourself.


The world wasn't made in six days genius.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 19, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> I don't know.  If there was, that meant that its parents weren't human and anyone it could possibly mate with would not have been human.  Perhaps the line which crosses to human isn't all that crisp.





THE LIGHT said:


> Instead of analyzing the raw data for yourself, you "believe" evolutionists because you don't want to think for yourself. If you looked at the facts for yourself rather than believing the outright delusional lies in evolutionism propaganda then you would see the simple truth. Instead you have chosen to be brainwashed.
> 
> "All thinking men are atheists." — Ernest Hemingway
> 
> ...



Why would anyone WANT to be an atheist?  Isn't it more sensible to believe that most atheism derives from a simple acceptance of the weight of the evidence from a logical, reasonable perspective?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 19, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Yes, to make an assertion like that. The data proves the Bible if you think for yourself.



The facts in the Bible are much like the facts in any work of historical novel.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 19, 2014)

BillyP said:


> Again you give a shrouded answer. Caused by what, god? Something else? You ashamed of your position?


lol.....no shroud....I'm pretty sure that despite your dancing you know my beliefs are quite clear here....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 19, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> How old was the first human when he appeared on the Earth?


I believe he was an adult.....how old was the first human that evolved?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 19, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Why would anyone WANT to be an atheist?  Isn't it more sensible to believe that most atheism derives from a simple acceptance of the weight of the evidence from a logical, reasonable perspective?


or maybe a birth defect.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 19, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Maybe you should just state for the record  how life occurred then.  And either stop telling us you've already done that, or refer us to the post where you did.


most recently, post #1005 in this thread.....oh, and remember when I told you I always point out WHY I consider someone's post to be stupid......this is one of them, because I have done it several times.....


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 19, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Why would anyone WANT to be an atheist?  Isn't it more sensible to believe that most atheism derives from a simple acceptance of the weight of the evidence from a logical, reasonable perspective?



No.  To do that I would have to ignore all of the evidence.  In terms of the existence of God, there is no evidence at all.  Not to support either side of the question.  However, there is considerable evidence regarding belief and I see nothing which supports the claim that Atheists believe any less than Theists.  Quite the opposite.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 19, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Do you know what 'starting point' even means?


yes....that point at which a single celled organism first evolved into a multicelled organism



> Cells can multiply.  That is fact.  Cells of one kind can produce cells of another kind.  That is fact.  Cells can mutate.  That is fact.


great.....now, is it a fact that single celled organisms can evolve into multicelled organisms and can you provide proof its ever happened?.....



> What are the facts behind your claim that multi-celled organisms had to have begun life on Earth fully formed?


that is a faith choice.....I have chosen to believe that.....I have not made the claim that science proves me right.....if you are willing to make the same claim and give up the pretense that science has proven it, then everything is good between us.....two blokes on equal footing.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 19, 2014)

konradv said:


> Is it really necessary?  One can infer from data.  If you say it's incorrect, you're saying God lies to us.


or we are saying you have made an incorrect inference.....


----------



## Hollie (Aug 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> yes....that point at which a single celled organism first evolved into a multicelled organism
> 
> 
> great.....now, is it a fact that single celled organisms can evolve into multicelled organisms and can you provide proof its ever happened?.....
> ...


Partisan religious belief is not on equal footing with science and knowledge. 

I think it’s important as thinking humans and as rational adults to understand that we are required to make critical assessments about things.

Myth and legend as delineated in the bibles is often in conflict with objective reality.

I understand well that many do not accept any history that conflicts with their preconceptions or religious dogma. That position pretty much frees them to ignore all reasoning and evidence, since they don't believe reasoning and evidence to be real anyway. Living in a fantastical world of denial and speculation is harmful because it skews your judgement regarding reality.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Partisan religious belief is not on equal footing with science and knowledge.



perhaps....but my knowledge of science trumps your lack of it.....


----------



## Hollie (Aug 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> I believe he was an adult.....how old was the first human that evolved?.....


A 6,000 year old planet pretty much rules out human evolution. 

I guess we're left with conspiracy theories about how proponents of biology, chemistry, the physical sciences, astronomy, archeology, etc., are sneaking out under cover of darkness with spades and shovels planting the fossil evidence.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> perhaps....but my knowledge of science trumps your lack of it.....


Your comments prove otherwise.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> yes....that point at which a single celled organism first evolved into a multicelled organism
> 
> 
> great.....now, is it a fact that single celled organisms can evolve into multicelled organisms and can you provide proof its ever happened?.....
> ...



Evolution is a scientific theory based on a mountain of evidence. 

The supernatural generation of fully formed creatures out of thin air is a superstition with no evidence to support it. 
No, they are not on equal footing.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> I believe he was an adult.....how old was the first human that evolved?.....



So you believe the wholly implausible idea that humans appeared on earth in a magic moment, as fully formed adults.

That is not a competing theory.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 19, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> No.  To do that I would have to ignore all of the evidence.  In terms of the existence of God, there is no evidence at all.  Not to support either side of the question.  However, there is considerable evidence regarding belief and I see nothing which supports the claim that Atheists believe any less than Theists.  Quite the opposite.



The evidence of belief is not the evidence of evidence.  You've supported my point actually.

As I once muttered somewhere long ago,

The amount of evidence needed to believe something is true is inversely proportionate to the amount of desire one has for it_ to_ be true.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 19, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> The evidence of belief is not the evidence of evidence.  You've supported my point actually.
> 
> As I once muttered somewhere long ago,
> 
> The amount of evidence needed to believe something is true is inversely proportionate to the amount of desire one has for it_ to_ be true.



No.  I merely did not exclude you from what you just said.


----------



## konradv (Aug 19, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Yes, to make an assertion like that. The data proves the Bible if you think for yourself.



There's fossils in the Bible?


----------



## konradv (Aug 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> or we are saying you have made an incorrect inference.....



The story is clear, IMO.  I'll stand by my inference.  I'd need to see compelling evidence to change my mind, but you don't seem to offer any.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 20, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Evolution is a scientific theory based on a mountain of evidence.
> 
> The supernatural generation of fully formed creatures out of thin air is a superstition with no evidence to support it.
> No, they are not on equal footing.




Only the mountain is very small. In fact, the mountain doesn't even exist.

The only argument you have is to say "I am right and you are wrong". But you don't even believe in right and wrong so you fail at that too.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 20, 2014)

konradv said:


> There's fossils in the Bible?



No, there are words in the Bible. The fossils are in the ground. The words in the Bible describe the creation of the planet we call earth and our universe among other things.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> lol.....no shroud....I'm pretty sure that despite your dancing you know my beliefs are quite clear here....


No I don't or I wouldn't ask. You mentioned in an adjacent post that you THINK that the first human was an adult. So you believe that humans just popped into existence. Which makes you a complete imbecile for constantly asking for proof of evolution, when you have no proof yourself of your popped-into-being-like-in-a-cartoon theory.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> A 6,000 year old planet pretty much rules out human evolution.


another dishonest post....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Evolution is a scientific theory based on a mountain of evidence.


and to the extent it is proven by science I believe in it......the problem arises when you take it beyond what science has proven, by the assumption that if you give it enough time, it could have accomplished anything.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> So you believe the wholly implausible idea that humans appeared on earth in a magic moment, as fully formed adults.
> 
> That is not a competing theory.


nothing magical about it......and again, its not proposed as a theory.....its a faith choice.....and its on equal footing with your faith choice.....sorry.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> The evidence of belief is not the evidence of evidence.  You've supported my point actually.
> 
> As I once muttered somewhere long ago,
> 
> The amount of evidence needed to believe something is true is inversely proportionate to the amount of desire one has for it_ to_ be true.


probably true....it would certainly explain those who believe in abiogenesis and the claim that single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

konradv said:


> IMO


well, if you finally acknowledge that, we may be making progress.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

BillyP said:


> No I don't or I wouldn't ask. You mentioned in an adjacent post that you THINK that the first human was an adult. So you believe that humans just popped into existence. Which makes you a complete imbecile for constantly asking for proof of evolution, when you have no proof yourself of your popped-into-being-like-in-a-cartoon theory.


this is so tiring.....which one of us in an imbecile, when I have stated at least five times in this thread alone that I am not proposing my faith statement as a scientific theory......one does not submit "proofs" of faith statements, you submit proofs of scientific theories....that is a requirement of the scientific method.......there is no corresponding "faith method" which requires the same......if you want equal treatment, stop pretending what you have is science instead of faith.....as long as you claim its science I will be asking you for proof that meets the scientific method.....


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> this is so tiring.....which one of us in an imbecile, when I have stated at least five times in this thread alone that I am not proposing my faith statement as a scientific theory......one does not submit "proofs" of faith statements, you submit proofs of scientific theories....that is a requirement of the scientific method.......there is no corresponding "faith method" which requires the same......if you want equal treatment, stop pretending what you have is science instead of faith.....as long as you claim its science I will be asking you for proof that meets the scientific method.....


 
"Proof" has meaning in math, it has no meaning at all in science.  There is no such thing as a scientific "proof", so it isn't a requirement of the scientific method.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> this is so tiring.....which one of us in an imbecile, when I have stated at least five times in this thread alone that I am not proposing my faith statement as a scientific theory......one does not submit "proofs" of faith statements, you submit proofs of scientific theories....that is a requirement of the scientific method.......there is no corresponding "faith method" which requires the same......if you want equal treatment, stop pretending what you have is science instead of faith.....as long as you claim its science I will be asking you for proof that meets the scientific method.....


Ok, you're one of those lunatics who thinks humans just popped into existence and that science is crap. Got it.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> nothing magical about it......and again, its not proposed as a theory.....its a faith choice.....and its on equal footing with your faith choice.....sorry.....


You actually think that the popped into being theory is on an equal footing with science, which has mountains of evidence to support its positions? You're a few bananas short of a bunch.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

BillyP said:


> You actually think that the popped into being theory is on an equal footing with science, which has mountains of evidence to support its positions? You're a few bananas short of a bunch.


do you really think there are mountains and mountains of evidence to support the claim single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms?........do you realize it has never once been tested in an experiment?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> "Proof" has meaning in math, it has no meaning at all in science.  There is no such thing as a scientific "proof", so it isn't a requirement of the scientific method.


when you conduct an experiment to test an hypothesis the goal is to obtain evidence the hypothesis is correct.....if it fails, one can say the hypothesis has been proven false......this is why one of the requirements of a scientific hypothesis is that it be falsifiable.....

now, it is true that if it passes the first experiment it has not been "proven" true......however, after it repeatedly passes it is often deemed true by the scientific community....

what is unique here is that something has been deemed true by the scientific community even though it has NEVER been tested and never will be.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

BillyP said:


> Ok, you're one of those lunatics who thinks humans just popped into existence and that science is crap. Got it.


no....I do not believe science is crap......I simply believe your arguments are crap....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> do you really think there are mountains and mountains of evidence to support the claim single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms?........do you realize it has never once been tested in an experiment?.....


H-u-m-a-n   e-m-b-r-y-o.

A *zygote* is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. In multicellular organisms, it is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo. In single-celled organisms, the zygote divides to produce offspring, usually through mitosis, the process of cell division.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> no....I do not believe science is crap......I simply believe your arguments are crap....


Says the guy who believes humans just popped into existence like in a cartoon. Hey, maybe your god is Walt Disney!


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

BillyP said:


> H-u-m-a-n   e-m-b-r-y-o.
> 
> A *zygote* is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. In multicellular organisms, it is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo. In single-celled organisms, the zygote divides to produce offspring, usually through mitosis, the process of cell division.


if reproduction is evolution, and the adult is human, what species is the zygote?


----------



## BillyP (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> if reproduction is evolution, and the adult is human, what species is the zygote?


It evolved from a single cell to a multi. Now Shaddap!


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

BillyP said:


> It evolved from a single cell to a multi. Now Shaddap!


doesn't evolution involve transition from one species to another?.......that is, of course what science says.......you don't intend to deny science, do you?.....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> doesn't evolution involve transition from one species to another?.......that is, of course what science says.......you don't intend to deny science, do you?.....


Every step of evolution isn't a big one, it takes many little steps to accomplish what you ask. You either already knew that or you should seriously read up on the subject before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself.
I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved over time and now I'm a vegetarian, I've evolved to a better species of human, if you like. 
Humans also have been getting taller over time, that's also evolution.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> when you conduct an experiment to test an hypothesis the goal is to obtain evidence the hypothesis is correct.....if it fails, one can say the hypothesis has been proven false......this is why one of the requirements of a scientific hypothesis is that it be falsifiable.....
> 
> now, it is true that if it passes the first experiment it has not been "proven" true......however, after it repeatedly passes it is often deemed true by the scientific community....
> 
> what is unique here is that something has been deemed true by the scientific community even though it has NEVER been tested and never will be.....


 
No.  If a test indicates the hypothesis is correct that merely moves it up a step.  In fact, it takes many tests for it to move up a step.  It does not "prove" it to be true.  Proof has no meaning in the process.  If you are talking about evolution from single to multi-cell life, it is not deemed to be true by the scientific community.  That is the prevailing theory based upon the available facts.  It is not a "truth".  Science is an investigatory process, it does not provide truths.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> No.  If a test indicates the hypothesis is correct that merely moves it up a step.  In fact, it takes many tests for it to move up a step.  It does not "prove" it to be true.  Proof has no meaning in the process.  If you are talking about evolution from single to multi-cell life, it is not deemed to be true by the scientific community.  That is the prevailing theory based upon the available facts.  It is not a "truth".  Science is an investigatory process, it does not provide truths.


so, no one here believes it is true that multicelled organisms evolved from single celled organisms?......


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> so, no one here believes it is true that multicelled organisms evolved from single celled organisms?......


 
I'm sure many people believe that.  I believe that.  I am sure the majority of scientists believe that.  But that is irrelevant to the scientific method.  There is no such thing as proof in that process.


----------



## konradv (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> and to the extent it is proven by science I believe in it......the problem arises when you take it beyond what science has proven, by the assumption that if you give it enough time, it could have accomplished anything.....



That's science.  It's done all the time.  It's just that this time it doesn't fit your religious feelings.  Get used to it and fight with facts, NOT complaints about how conclusions are drawn.  If you puts your facts together logically, the opposition's flaws will be obvious.  You haven't met that standard.


----------



## konradv (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> this is so tiring.....which one of us in an imbecile, when I have stated at least five times in this thread alone that I am not proposing my faith statement as a scientific theory......one does not submit "proofs" of faith statements, you submit proofs of scientific theories....that is a requirement of the scientific method.......there is no corresponding "faith method" which requires the same......if you want equal treatment, stop pretending what you have is science instead of faith.....as long as you claim its science I will be asking you for proof that meets the scientific method.....




I understand where you're coming from..., partially.  While religious beliefs do come from faith, if you want to tell us our "scientific" assumptions are wrong, you're going to have to do it in a scientific manner.


----------



## Rationalist1016 (Aug 20, 2014)

The main problem with this current argument is that evolution and abiogenesis are being confused.  Abiogenesis is life forming from non-living matter.  Evolution only addresses how multi-cell organisms change over time.  It makes NO claims about how life came to exist.
These two subjects should be argued separately because they address two different things.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 20, 2014)

Rationalist1016 said:


> The main problem with this current argument is that evolution and abiogenesis are being confused.  Abiogenesis is life forming from non-living matter.  Evolution only addresses how multi-cell organisms change over time.  It makes NO claims about how life came to exist.
> These two subjects should be argued separately because they address two different things.


 
I would think the transition from single cell to multi-cell would still be evolution.


----------



## pinqy (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> when you conduct an experiment to test an hypothesis the goal is to obtain evidence the hypothesis is correct.....if it fails, one can say the hypothesis has been proven false......this is why one of the requirements of a scientific hypothesis is that it be falsifiable.....


Not quite. You test the null hypothesis...that there is no relationship. If you can reject the null hypothesis, that means that it is likely the alternative hypothesis is correct. In other words: you don't test to see if your idea is supported, you test to see if the opposite of your idea is supported. 

Falsifiability simply means that conditions exist under which the proposal could be proven wrong. There are any number of observations that would prove evolution wrong. The classic is a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian, but others would be things like a dog giving birth to kittens, or a pig with wings, or a dog with scales...any kind of true chimera.



> what is unique here is that something has been deemed true by the scientific community even though it has NEVER been tested and never will be.....


 You seem to be under the misapprehension that hypothesis testing can only occur in a lab. That's ridiculous...unless you want to say all of astronomy is false because it's never been tested.  For cases where direct experimentation cannot occur, testing takes the form of observation. No observation that contradicts the general theory of evolution has yet been made. Some parts of Darwin's original theory have been demonstrated to be incorrect, and other ideas have come and gone, but that species change over time and that all life on earth shares a common ancestor? Nothing to contradict that has been found and plenty of evidence to support it has.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 20, 2014)

pinqy said:


> Not quite. You test the null hypothesis...that there is no relationship. If you can reject the null hypothesis, that means that it is likely the alternative hypothesis is correct. In other words: you don't test to see if your idea is supported, you test to see if the opposite of your idea is supported.
> 
> Falsifiability simply means that conditions exist under which the proposal could be proven wrong. There are any number of observations that would prove evolution wrong. The classic is a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian, but others would be things like a dog giving birth to kittens, or a pig with wings, or a dog with scales...any kind of true chimera.
> 
> You seem to be under the misapprehension that hypothesis testing can only occur in a lab. That's ridiculous...unless you want to say all of astronomy is false because it's never been tested.  For cases where direct experimentation cannot occur, testing takes the form of observation. No observation that contradicts the general theory of evolution has yet been made. Some parts of Darwin's original theory have been demonstrated to be incorrect, and other ideas have come and gone, but that species change over time and that all life on earth shares a common ancestor? Nothing to contradict that has been found and plenty of evidence to support it has.


 
Very well put.  I wish I had done as good a job.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> do you really think there are mountains and mountains of evidence to support the claim single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms?........do you realize it has never once been tested in an experiment?.....



You need someone to conduct an experiment lasting 5 billion years, that would require the exact conditions that occurred on the Earth over that time period, in order to prove that complex organisms can evolve from single celled organisms,

otherwise we must dismiss the theory of evolution as just one more creation myth on par with Genesis in the Bible?

lol, good one


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 20, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> Very well put.  I wish I had done as good a job.



lol, that poster says there's plenty of evidence to support the theory of evolution and you agree;  I say the same and you disagree.  You are confused.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> do you really think there are mountains and mountains of evidence to support the claim single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms?........do you realize it has never once been tested in an experiment?.....



As I posted to someone else in a different thread, you're trying to dispute the principle behind Russell's teapot:


Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 20, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> lol, that poster says there's plenty of evidence to support the theory of evolution and you agree;  I say the same and you disagree.  You are confused.


 
No.  I was responding in another thread which was not about evolution.  I don't think evolution was even mentioned.  I was disagreeing that there was a mountain of data about God.


----------



## Rationalist1016 (Aug 20, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> I would think the transition from single cell to multi-cell would still be evolution.



It is not my understanding that single to multi-cell is an evolutionary step.  It is my understanding that this step was a cooperation of cells to form multi-cell.  But again, this is just my basic understanding.  Please provide a link to better information if you have it.
My main point was that evolution often is asked to care the burden of proof for things it is not meant to explain.  How life started is not evolution.  And many times the proposition is that if we can't explain how life started, then how can evolution have any credibility. And that is a false equivalency.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 20, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> No.  I was responding in another thread which was not about evolution.  I don't think evolution was even mentioned.  I was disagreeing that there was a mountain of data about God.


 
Yep.  I went back and checked.  Nowhere in that thread was evolution mentioned until you asked if I was saying there was no evidence for it.  Quite out of the blue.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 20, 2014)

Rationalist1016 said:


> It is not my understanding that single to multi-cell is an evolutionary step.  It is my understanding that this step was a cooperation of cells to form multi-cell.  But again, this is just my basic understanding.  Please provide a link to better information if you have it.
> My main point was that evolution often is asked to care the burden of proof for things it is not meant to explain.  How life started is not evolution.  And many times the proposition is that if we can't explain how life started, then how can evolution have any credibility. And that is a false equivalency.


 
I don't get how what you described isn't evolution.  Abiogenesis is the transition from non-life to life.  A single celled organism is alive.  So going from one to many cells would not be abiogenesis.  Would you apply another term to it?


----------



## Rationalist1016 (Aug 20, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> I don't get how what you described isn't evolution.  Abiogenesis is the transition from non-life to life.  A single celled organism is alive.  So going from one to many cells would not be abiogenesis.  Would you apply another term to it?



No, you are correct.  That was muddy language on my part.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> I'm sure many people believe that.  I believe that.  I am sure the majority of scientists believe that.  But that is irrelevant to the scientific method.  There is no such thing as proof in that process.


so will you concede that the claim human beings evolved from a single celled organism is a statement of belief and has not been proven by science?....(if so, one down and about twenty to go)......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

konradv said:


> I understand where you're coming from..., partially.  While religious beliefs do come from faith, if you want to tell us our "scientific" assumptions are wrong, you're going to have to do it in a scientific manner.


I am.....I am pointing out that your beliefs have not met the requirements of the scientific method.....


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> so will you concede that the claim human beings evolved from a single celled organism is a statement of belief and has not been proven by science?....(if so, one down and about twenty to go)......


 
If someone says that it is a fact, then that is certainly a belief.  It has not been proven by science and I doubt it ever will be.  It's just the best conclusion we have based upon the evidence at hand.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

Rationalist1016 said:


> The main problem with this current argument is that evolution and abiogenesis are being confused.  Abiogenesis is life forming from non-living matter.  Evolution only addresses how multi-cell organisms change over time.  It makes NO claims about how life came to exist.
> These two subjects should be argued separately because they address two different things.


whenever I have referred to them I have been careful to list BOTH abiogenesis AND the evolution of humans from a single celled organism (or its first basic step - the evolution of a multicelled organism from a single celled organism).....they are two separate claims, however they both share the same fault in that they cannot be falsified.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

pinqy said:


> Not quite. You test the null hypothesis...that there is no relationship. If you can reject the null hypothesis, that means that it is likely the alternative hypothesis is correct. In other words: you don't test to see if your idea is supported, you test to see if the opposite of your idea is supported.
> 
> Falsifiability simply means that conditions exist under which the proposal could be proven wrong. There are any number of observations that would prove evolution wrong. The classic is a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian, but others would be things like a dog giving birth to kittens, or a pig with wings, or a dog with scales...any kind of true chimera.
> 
> You seem to be under the misapprehension that hypothesis testing can only occur in a lab. That's ridiculous...unless you want to say all of astronomy is false because it's never been tested.  For cases where direct experimentation cannot occur, testing takes the form of observation. No observation that contradicts the general theory of evolution has yet been made. Some parts of Darwin's original theory have been demonstrated to be incorrect, and other ideas have come and gone, but that species change over time and that all life on earth shares a common ancestor? Nothing to contradict that has been found and plenty of evidence to support it has.



and you are under the misapprehension that simply observing things is a substitute for testing.....if you look at something and come to the wrong assumption you have not tested the hypothesis....an example is transitional fossils......finding a fossil and discovering a similar characteristic is not proof that something is transitional.....it may in fact be transitional between two other fossils that have not even been discovered......



> Nothing to contradict that has been found


/grins.....have you never heard of a book called Forbidden Archaeology?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> As I posted to someone else in a different thread, you're trying to dispute the principle behind Russell's teapot:
> 
> 
> Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


russel's teapot is a philosophical argument, not scientific evidence......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

Rationalist1016 said:


> It is not my understanding that single to multi-cell is an evolutionary step.  It is my understanding that this step was a cooperation of cells to form multi-cell.  But again, this is just my basic understanding.  Please provide a link to better information if you have it.
> My main point was that evolution often is asked to care the burden of proof for things it is not meant to explain.  How life started is not evolution.  And many times the proposition is that if we can't explain how life started, then how can evolution have any credibility. And that is a false equivalency.


???....how could it not be an evolutionary step?.......a multicelled organism, when it reproduces, forms a new multicelled organism......when a cell which is part of a cluster of single celled organisms reproduces it forms a new single celled organism which finds a new cluster to attach to......

that change in the reproductive system is a MAJOR evolutionary hurdle.....


----------



## Rationalist1016 (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> whenever I have referred to them I have been careful to list BOTH abiogenesis AND the evolution of humans from a single celled organism (or its first basic step - the evolution of a multicelled organism from a single celled organism).....they are two separate claims, however they both share the same fault in that they cannot be falsified.....



Abiogenesis is not a proven fact, that is true.  There have been many experiments done, and their is a lot left to learn about how it could have happened.  But evolution is a fact.  Evolution, ("change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."), has been observed.  Which is why it is called the "theory" of evolution and not the "hypothesis" of evolution.


----------



## guno (Aug 20, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Unfortunately, it's a theory - not a fact - It's the *Theory of Evolution* - untill someonme invents a Time Machine it will remain a theory.  It's a theory that I somewhat agree with - however it has alot of holes in it .
> 
> One primary hole being the absense of intermediate species or transitional fossils with the geological evidence.
> 
> ...



Since you are uneducated and woefully ignorant a little education for you


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> russel's teapot is a philosophical argument, not scientific evidence......



So?  If you want scientific evidence of evolution, I suggest you google 'evolution' and start reading


----------



## pinqy (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> and you are under the misapprehension that simply observing things is a substitute for testing.....


It is if controlled tests are not possible. Do you really want to throw out astronomy as a science? Geology? 




> if you look at something and come to the wrong assumption you have not tested the hypothesis


Well, yes....because you shouldn't come to any assumptions. First, as I already stated, we don't test the hypothesis, we test the null hypothesis. If we can discard the null hypothesis, then the alternative hypothesis _might_ be true. 



> ....an example is transitional fossils......finding a fossil and discovering a similar characteristic is not proof that something is transitional.....it may in fact be transitional between two other fossils that have not even been discovered......


 Who says otherwise? But the testing is, again, of the null hypothesis...that there is no relationship between the two fossils. If the null hypothesis fails, then we know there probably is a relationship, but more observations would be needed to see if there's a direct lineage. There are many cases where a direct lineage was first believed, and then later rejected.  I find your example odd, though.....are you saying that a supposed transitional fossil might still be in the same lineage but between two other steps in that lineage? In that case it would still be transitional. If you mean transitional of a completely different lineage, sure.  Conclusions are tentative.




> have you never heard of a book called Forbidden Archaeology?.....


I have not heard of it.


----------



## guno (Aug 20, 2014)

guno said:


> Since you are uneducated and woefully ignorant a little education for you


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 20, 2014)

guno said:


>


 
Science truly does make a lousy religion.  It shouldn't be treated as one.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> do you really think there are mountains and mountains of evidence to support the claim single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms?........do you realize it has never once been tested in an experiment?.....



nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 20, 2014)

This thread is about as close as we will ever get to a Time Machine. I come here occasionally to get a feel for contemporary thinking as it was in the year 900 AD. it is actually pretty entertaining.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

Rationalist1016 said:


> Abiogenesis is not a proven fact, that is true.  There have been many experiments done, and their is a lot left to learn about how it could have happened.  But evolution is a fact.  Evolution, ("change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."), has been observed.  Which is why it is called the "theory" of evolution and not the "hypothesis" of evolution.


the change of one species of warbler into another (and similar) has been observed.....the change of a non human into a human has not been observed....the change of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism has not been observed......that is NOT a theory.....it may not even qualify as an hypothesis......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> So?  If you want scientific evidence of evolution, I suggest you google 'evolution' and start reading


???.....but I already know more about it than you do....my I suggest YOU start reading?.....


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> the change of one species of warbler into another (and similar) has been observed.....the change of a non human into a human has not been observed....the change of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism has not been observed......that is NOT a theory.....it may not even qualify as an hypothesis......


 
It is a theory and so far fits all of the evidence we have.  I find it more than plausible and certainly superior to any other conclusion put forth.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> the change of one species of warbler into another (and similar) has been observed.....the change of a non human into a human has not been observed....the change of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism has not been observed......that is NOT a theory.....it may not even qualify as an hypothesis......



nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

pinqy said:


> It is if controlled tests are not possible. Do you really want to throw out astronomy as a science? Geology?


???....there are many things you can test in astronomy and geology......if you are asking if we should not pretend things that cannot be tested in those fields are science, obviously yes, we should stop pretending....


> Well, yes....because you shouldn't come to any assumptions. First, as I already stated, we don't test the hypothesis, we test the null hypothesis. If we can discard the null hypothesis, then the alternative hypothesis _might_ be true.


I'm sorry...."might be true" is not part of the scientific process....



> Who says otherwise?


a whole lot of people who post in this forum....



> If the null hypothesis fails, then we know there probably is a relationship


uh, no......if for example I have a positive hypothesis, such as......if I mix water and flour together it will burn.....and I test it by mixing water and flour and it does NOT result in fire, I have proven the hypothesis is false.....that is not testing for a null hypothesis......now, if I modify my hyptothesis to if I mix water and flour together at a temperature of 10,000 degrees K......then I will likely have positive results as close to the 100% mark as you can get.....in no event can you arrive at any scientific conclusion based on "might be true" or "probably"


> are you saying that a supposed transitional fossil might still be in the same lineage but between two other steps in that lineage?



no, I'm saying it could be a completely different line running at right angles to the one you are "observing" that just happens to share a characteristic.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)


that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> It is a theory and so far fits all of the evidence we have.  I find it more than plausible and certainly superior to any other conclusion put forth.


/shrugs....so, your faith is strong....


----------



## pinqy (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> ???....there are many things you can test in astronomy and geology......


Oh? What labrotory tests have been conducted in astronomy?  Planetary orbits duplicated? Nuclear reactions for how a star works? And in geology?  What lab experiment has shown continental drift?



> I'm sorry...."might be true" is not part of the scientific process....


 Of course it is. All conclusions are tentative.



> uh, no......if for example I have a positive hypothesis, such as......if I mix water and flour together it will burn.....and I test it by mixing water and flour and it does NOT result in fire, I have proven the hypothesis is false.....that is not testing for a null hypothesis.


Yes it is. You are testing to see if they will not burn if you put them together. They do not during your experiment. Therefore you cannot discard the null hypothesis that they will not burn and cannot accept the hypothesis that they will. You gave a simplistic example, but it works better for more complicated statistical analysis.



> no, I'm saying it could be a completely different line running at right angles to the one you are "observing" that just happens to share a characteristic.....


Right...you can't be sure. So what?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)
> ...



Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists  or move the goalposts.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 20, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > no....I do not believe science is crap......I simply believe your arguments are crap....
> ...



PostMod is just trying to discredit science because he thinks that somehow transfers credibility to his myths, as if there's some sort of zero sum game at work here.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> > Abiogenesis is not a proven fact, that is true.  There have been many experiments done, and their is a lot left to learn about how it could have happened.  But evolution is a fact.  Evolution, ("change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."), has been observed.  Which is why it is called the "theory" of evolution and not the "hypothesis" of evolution.
> ...


The skeletons/fossils of most or all the different steps between apes and humans have been observed, and what you're asking, that if anyone has seen an ape change into a human, took millions of years. Seriously, read up on it, are you gonna make me beg?


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > It is a theory and so far fits all of the evidence we have.  I find it more than plausible and certainly superior to any other conclusion put forth.
> ...



Not really.  If evidence indicates it is no longer the most plausible I will change my position.  My faith is nothing compared to yours. 

It really doesn't matter.  If I believe it is true, that does not make it true.  If you believe it is false, that does not make it false.  No matter how hard either of us might believe, it has zero impact upon what is true.  So I have no problem at all with you believing as you please.  I shall do the same.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

pinqy said:


> Oh?.


yes, spectrum analysis of stars......the Hubble telescope......analysis of asteroids.....


> Of course it is. All conclusions are tentative.


its not the standard scientists are searching for....


> Right...you can't be sure. So what?


lol...well, lets see.....if you can't be sure you might look like a fucking idiot for claiming it is.....and some guy on an internet forum who's been asking for proof and now hears you say "well, we can't be sure but it doesn't matter" is going to laugh and say "I told you so".......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


I haven't moved any goal posts.....I'm still asking for the same thing I have been since January.....proof that a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism.......and there's a good reason to deny it exists......the reason is, it doesn't exist......if it did, one of you fools would have produced it since January.....instead I just get the same failed arguments, over and over and over.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I'm not discrediting science at all.....I'm discrediting your arguments.....did you think your arguments were science?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 20, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Rationalist1016 said:
> ...


I may make you beg for mercy.....prove to me that one of these "transitional fossils" is a step between apes and humans.....what if its just an ape-like creature that has no living descendants at all?......can you prove its more than just a dead animal?......


----------



## Rationalist1016 (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Rationalist1016 said:
> 
> 
> > It is not my understanding that single to multi-cell is an evolutionary step.  It is my understanding that this step was a cooperation of cells to form multi-cell.  But again, this is just my basic understanding.  Please provide a link to better information if you have it.
> ...



I have been trying to post some links to the information that makes me disagree, but I get an error whenever I try to post.  Once this is straightened out, I will come back to this.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


This is the classic, misinformed, befuddled comment that thumpers make continually.

"Man" was not an ape, did not descend from an ape (or monkey), but shared a common ancestor which appeared ape-like.

If you had taken even the most basic, 7th grade earth history / biology courses,  you would have been exposed to the rather complete fossil record delineating the evolution of man.

There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.


----------



## OZman (Aug 20, 2014)

Rationalist1016 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Rationalist1016 said:
> ...



This link contains research on the origin of cellular life.

The Origin of Cellular Life on Earth: Jack Szostak


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 21, 2014)

BillyP said:


> Ok, you're one of those lunatics who thinks humans just popped into existence and that science is crap. Got it.



No, you believe the earth popped into existence, I believe it was created.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 21, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, you're one of those lunatics who thinks humans just popped into existence and that science is crap. Got it.
> ...


No, I never said that. I agree with what the scientists say, because they're right. You believe that the world was created by an invisible superbeing in another dimension who made humans with so many flaws that it will punish you if you don't follow a book. Sounds pretty absurd when I lay it all out, doesn't it?


----------



## BillyP (Aug 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...


I would add: The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.


----------



## pinqy (Aug 21, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Oh?.
> ...


Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.





> lol...well, lets see.....if you can't be sure you might look like a fucking idiot for claiming it is.....and some guy on an internet forum who's been asking for proof and now hears you say "well, we can't be sure but it doesn't matter" is going to laugh and say "I told you so".......


It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> "Man" was not an ape, did not descend from an ape (or monkey), but shared a common ancestor which appeared ape-like.



then like me, you disagree with Billy?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 21, 2014)

pinqy said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


not at all.....I am perfectly willing to let you show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism outside the laboratory.......





> It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.



so your defense of your claims is that while they may be wrong now you have faith it will be proven true later....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 21, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > "Man" was not an ape, did not descend from an ape (or monkey), but shared a common ancestor which appeared ape-like.
> ...


She's right, we descend from a common ancestor that wasn't actually an ape. My mistake.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 21, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Scientists move on when they're wrong and someone shows them why, that's sometimes how science advances. No faith involved. Please try again.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 21, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


now that I have shown you why you are wrong, will you move on?....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 21, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Wrong on what? Science? Or are you still beating that dead horse that science is faith based?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 21, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...





PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...





PostmodernProph said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...





PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
It's apparent that you don't care about the legitimacy of your arguments, but anyway,

you stuck on a very false premise that science has to be able to reproduce everything in a lab experiment in order for it to be considered a scientific fact or theory.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 21, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


 
PostMod's 'faith' is really nothing more than the equivalent of someone who believes with certainty that sasquatches roam the woods of the great Northwest.


----------



## LittleNipper (Aug 21, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


We are becoming apes. Evolutionists believe we are becoming GODS!


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 21, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


actually, my premise is that the evolution of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism has never been reproduced, observed, tested or validated.....and until SOMETHING is demonstrated, its not science at all......


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 21, 2014)

LittleNipper said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Not becoming apes.  Are apes.  Not becoming gods.  Are God.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 21, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



That is nonsense.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 21, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



In spite of your objections, multi cellular organisms did in fact evolve. 

I'm perfectly willing to see your evidence of your gawds magically  *poofing* all of existence a mere 6,000 years ago.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


silly, Hollie.....not only can you not produce evidence its a fact, you can't remember from one page to the next that I'm not a young earther.....no wonder your posts carry no weight.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 21, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


do you then have something you can link which will show that the evolution of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism has ever been reproduced, observed, tested or validated?.......


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 22, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> This thread is about as close as we will ever get to a Time Machine. I come here occasionally to get a feel for contemporary thinking as it was in the year 900 AD. it is actually pretty entertaining.



I agree. Evolutionism takes us back to the middle ages.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 22, 2014)

BillyP said:


> No, I never said that. I agree with what the scientists say, because they're right. You believe that the world was created by an invisible superbeing in another dimension who made humans with so many flaws that it will punish you if you don't follow a book. Sounds pretty absurd when I lay it all out, doesn't it?



And those "scientists" say the earth popped into existence when nothing exploded and that life rode into earth on the backs of meteor. Sounds pretty absurd when you have to hear what you actually believe rather than just saying "I agree with what the scientists say, because they're right".

First of all, you cannot say they are "right" because you don't believe in absolutes. Second of all, I can say you are "wrong" and I am right because I DO believe in absolutes.

I believe the world was created by a Creator Yashua who made the earth good on day one and it remained so, but Adam and Eve took and ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (the tree of "the law") because they wanted to become gods (just as every atheist does today). Through Adam's sin, death and sickness entered into the world and we now live in a fallen world. Fortunately there is hope for those who accept Christ as their personal savior.


----------



## guno (Aug 22, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > No, I never said that. I agree with what the scientists say, because they're right. You believe that the world was created by an invisible superbeing in another dimension who made humans with so many flaws that it will punish you if you don't follow a book. Sounds pretty absurd when I lay it all out, doesn't it?
> ...




Quoting from a primitive book of superstition only makes you look like an uneducated dolt when it comes to any discussion on Science


----------



## guno (Aug 22, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > No, I never said that. I agree with what the scientists say, because they're right. You believe that the world was created by an invisible superbeing in another dimension who made humans with so many flaws that it will punish you if you don't follow a book. Sounds pretty absurd when I lay it all out, doesn't it?
> ...




>I believe the world was created by a Creator Yashua<

Is that why we Jews know your yeshu was a mamzer (bastard) a product of  the hairdresser and whore mary, and a roman soldier , that's who created your world?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Well, actually, it's a fact that multi cell organisms do exist and do evolve. You can produce no evidence that any of your gawds snapped their magical digits and *poofed* those entities into existence.

Celebrate your YEC proclivities.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 
Nope.  But what is nonsense is your statement that until something is demonstrated it is not science.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 22, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> Nope.  But what is nonsense is your statement that until something is demonstrated it is not science.


now I understand your error.....
science is a process of observing, testing, categorizing and understanding the world around us......"something" may exist in the world around us as truth and fact, but if its never been observed, tested, categorized and understood, it is not science.....

this is why is is said that a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable....
Hypotheses


----------



## BillyP (Aug 22, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is about as close as we will ever get to a Time Machine. I come here occasionally to get a feel for contemporary thinking as it was in the year 900 AD. it is actually pretty entertaining.
> ...


To when the church thought the world was flat?


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 22, 2014)

Penguins are birds. They don't fly anymore. They evolved.
There are fish that can cross dry land to get to other water. They evolved.
..or am I wrong?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 25, 2014)

BillyP said:


> To when the church thought the world was flat?



Once again, that is a myth that only uneducated atheists pass around without checking the facts. 



> "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference"


 source: Wikipedia (why wiki??? because wiki is sooo anti-christian and yet EVEN THEY recognize the stupidity of what you just said.)


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 25, 2014)

guno said:


> Quoting from a primitive book of superstition only makes you look like an uneducated dolt when it comes to any discussion on Science



I don't like primitive books. A book is primitive if it is based merely on man's knowledge. Unlike "science" textbooks, the Bible was dictated by God and is therefore accurate throughout time. That's why I like to stick with the Bible. There's no expiration date on it.


----------



## konradv (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > I understand where you're coming from..., partially.  While religious beliefs do come from faith, if you want to tell us our "scientific" assumptions are wrong, you're going to have to do it in a scientific manner.
> ...




That's ludicrous.  You've been *belittling* the methods used, *twisting* how they were used or *claiming* they weren't used at all.  The only thing you* haven't done* is to actually point out how evolutionists' beliefs are wrong.  That would require *YOU* using the scientific method properly, which has not been in evidence the entire thread.


----------



## konradv (Aug 25, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > Quoting from a primitive book of superstition only makes you look like an uneducated dolt when it comes to any discussion on Science
> ...



Who ever claimed the Bible was dictated?  I think you have it confused with the Koran(The Recitation).  The Bible was *written* by men,* inspired* by God.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 25, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


seriously?......my argument from the very beginning has been that the evolutionists are wrong for not remaining true to the scientific method.....thus I have been demonstrating why the methods used were not the methods of science and pointing out where they haven't been used at all......that IS me using the scientific method properly.....


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 25, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > Quoting from a primitive book of superstition only makes you look like an uneducated dolt when it comes to any discussion on Science
> ...



See?  This is what you're up against when you try to reason with the 'faithful'.

...why is that true?...because it's in the Bible...why does being in the Bible make it true?...because it's the Bible...

That, for better or for worse, is the irrationality of religion.


----------



## BillyP (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Then you clearly need to read up on scientific methods. And anyways, how can someone who thinks an invisible being poofed everything into existence argue about scientific methods as relating to where we come from?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



You are establishing a false premise to argue from, which is that unless scientists can reproduce some event in a laboratory, it cannot be considered a valid theory.

We can't recreate the 5 billion year history of the Earth in a lab.  That does not in any way reduce science's estimate of the age of the Earth to simply a guess equal in merit to the Bible's 6000 year age of Earth estimate.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Why are you demanding absolute proof beyond all reasonable doubt of a scientific theory?  That's why it's called a theory.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 25, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is about as close as we will ever get to a Time Machine. I come here occasionally to get a feel for contemporary thinking as it was in the year 900 AD. it is actually pretty entertaining.
> ...


/QUOTE]
You and the science illiterate should be made aware that "evolutionism" incorporates the science disciplines of biology, chemistry, paleontology, earth history, etc.

It was science and waning influence of the church in Europe that led the continent out of the church enabled Dark Ages.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 25, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


I am quite familiar with it....in fact, I can quote from memory the section that your argument fails.....testing.....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Ya the part that fails is the part about everything being proofed into existence. So please don't argue about scientific methods, if anyone has a bogus anti-scientific claim, it's you, douchebag.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 25, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


1) close.....you have to have some form of evidence that exhibits the claim passes at least an initial test of being falsifiable....
2) like Hollie, you should reserve your arguments about 6000 year old earths to discussion with people that believe in 6000 year old earths.....the claim is meaningless in an argument with me....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 25, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


I'm not.....I'm just trying to get you to realize you have no evidence whatsoever.....nothing that has ever been argued here is something which could only be true if human beings evolved from a single celled organism......


----------



## BillyP (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So how long has it been since the earth was poofed into existence?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 25, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...


then can you demonstrate that the claim humans evolved from single celled organisms is falsifiable?......if I gave you the next six million years to come up with an experiment proving a single celled organism could even evolve into a multicelled organism and you didn't, would you acknowledge the claim is false?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 25, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


I haven't the slightest idea how long ago God created the heavens and the earth.....nor, to be honest, do I care....


----------



## BillyP (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Just curious, is the universe expanding like scientists say? If yes, it would matter because how close did god put everything together before expansion? Very close? not so close?


----------



## BillyP (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You think that everything was poofed into existence fully formed. Proving something to you scientifically is therefore not possible, as your whole existence is based on fantasy.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



1)  Evolution is easily falsifable were a Creator to make himself known and were then to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he could create complex living creatures, fully formed, by design.

In other words, evolution is falsifiable by the so-called Intelligent Design theory.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> [
> I'm not.....I'm just trying to get you to realize you have no evidence whatsoever.....nothing that has ever been argued here is something which could only be true if human beings evolved from a single celled organism......



You rejected the evidence.  You asked for evidence all the while knowing that you were prepared to reject any and all evidence arbitrarily,

as if you had somehow been magically crowned the Arbiter of Evidence.

lol

...which btw is a very well worn argumentative tactic, and fallacious to boot.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 25, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Was there a first human?
> ...



Because just like there was never just one fish and that fish turned into all the fish we see today, there was not one human.  Many pre humans crawled out of the sea and started breathing air.  Then we were small mammals while the dinosaurs ruled.  Then we were apes.  Then we were humaniods.  

Doesn't it tell you anything that Chinese people developed their own unique language that has no ties to English?  It wasn't like one person invented speech and then all the different nationalities put their spin on it.  Asian people invented their own unique language.  Just like they invented their own religions.  Just like native American indians invented their own language and concepts of god.  

It wasn't one person who came up with god or with language.  That's because different tribes all around the planet evolved separately.  We all started in Africa but eventually the one super continent broke up.  The tribes that came out of the ocean in the west went one day, got lighter skin, etc.  The Eskemos were probably north Africa and they trifted north, etc.

This happened over millions of years probably.  

Was the one original dog?  Or two?  One female and one male?  I guess if you take the Noah story literally you would say yes.

_“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” _- Ken Ham


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 25, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



At some point our closest non-human ancestor started producing offspring that could be called
 human.  At some point there weren't any humans, at another there were.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 25, 2014)

b





NYcarbineer said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I have to go with Sealybobo on this one.  I just don't think the line was that distinct.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Partisan religious belief is not on equal footing with science and knowledge.
> ...



Yea but your knowledge of science doesn't trump the shows we watch on the science channel, animal planet, history channel, pbs and the cosmos. 

Almost every night I watch a show on one of these channels and they prove why you theists are idiots and she's right.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 25, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I suppose that's true.  There had to be a first just like there will be a first baby born in 2015 and every year after that.  Good point.  I wonder what they thought when at 14 when he was smarter than even their tribal elders that on average only lived to be about 32 years old.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 25, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



They probably thought he was a god and they built pyramids in his honor.  He know doubt became their king.  

Didn't we even breed with neandertals?  Aren't read heads all related to neandertals?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 25, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> b
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know people who've told me space men visited us back in the pre pyramid days and breeded with us and that's how we got to be smarter.  

And you know those shows that show it is almost impossible for them to have made the pyramids with the primitive tools they had back then?  And they seemed to possess knowledge that was way beyond their time.  

i'm not saying I believe it but the possibilities are fascinating.  If I was a space man and landed here and breeded with monkeys and made monkey men I would certainly set myself up as a Pharaoh or King or God.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 25, 2014)

Halleiuyah_man14 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



That sure is primitive, uneducated, unscientific logic and reasoning.  Because we are capable of imagining god, a god put that thought in our hearts?  

Doesn't religion say he created the devil too?  Well if he put himself in our hearts, then he put the devil in our hearts too.  

If I wrote a book trying to convince non believers, that's exactly the story I would make up and tell.  Not convinced.  

We have no excuse to hurt other people but we have every excuse to not believe in god.  It isn't even necessary.  It isn't to me.  I am a very good person.  I live and let live.  I'm a great neighbor.  I would help someone in need.  I think we should do more for the poor.  Love not war.  You should see how I help my mom who has Alzheimers.  How many of you theists would put your mom in a home and only visit her once a month?  If there is a hell people who do that are there, not people who don't believe the stories told by my ignorant grand parents and a corrupt church.  

Here's a great place to start

Why there is no god


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 25, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > b
> ...



If they did, then they were seriously screwed up folks.  Of course, that might explain a lot of stuff.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 25, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Ancient astronaut hypothesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

10 Human Creations Attributed To Aliens - Listverse

Makes more sense than the Adam, Eve, Moses, Noah & Jesus stories.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 25, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> I have to go with Sealybobo on this one.  I just don't think the line was that distinct.



Well what defines a species determines that an individual is either a homo sapien or not.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 25, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > I have to go with Sealybobo on this one.  I just don't think the line was that distinct.
> ...



Maybe 100 aliens came down and fucked 1000 apes and made 1000 "humans".

Sure one of them had to be born first but still he might not have been all alone when it came time for him to mate and reproduce.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You haven't the slightest clue that your gawds "created" anything, let alone *poofing* all of existence 6,000 years ago.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


This is typical for fundies. As science has stripped away the fears and superstitions of religious belief, the really angry believers tend to lash out at the science for presenting explanations that the angry fundies prefer not to acknowledge. 

It's ok that science doesn't have every answer, as long as it continues to proceed with discovery. There is no need for _faith_ in the naturalistic explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause.

There's no reason why the evolution of life should be any different.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 25, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...


I recall reading an article that reported scientific evidence to that effect.....would it matter?.....not in the least.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 25, 2014)

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...


shall I take it from your diversion that the answer to the question is no?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 25, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


and your diversion means the same?....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 25, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



true, I have rejected everything you've raised so far, and for good reason.....but you guys seem so certain you have evidence I assumed you were holding something in reserve...;.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 25, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



is that something you've read?...../grins.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 25, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BillyP said:
> ...


so its typical for fundies to ask you to provide evidence supporting your claims?.....


----------



## Hollie (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


The diversion is yours. Biological evolution is denied by fundies because it directly contradicts creation tales and fables. Your denials are driven by your lack of knowledge regarding science.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You have the evidence for biological evolution.

What you refuse to do is support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 25, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


the evolution of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism and eventually into a human being is denied by me because there is no scientific evidence it ever happened.....that conclusion comes to me because I have more knowledge of science than you do......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 25, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I am not aware of any evidence that a single celled organism evolved into a human being.....neither do you, or you would have shared it by now.....


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Is that supposed to mean something?

Do you deny that proof of intelligent design could falsify the theory of evolution?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You give yourself credit for nothing. If you had ever had an introduction to biology, you would never had made such a statement.

As usual, you slither away when you're tasked with supporting your claims to magic and supernaturalism. 

Thrill us with the evidence you have for Noah's Ark and biblical tales. Identify for us how all of existence began 6,000 years ago.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



So that means that the scientists who disagree with you have less knowledge of science than you do?

lol

By your reasoning we have no evidence that dinosaurs ever roamed the earth, because all we have are skeletons or fossils, and they are not really evidence, since they aren't actually alive.

lol


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 25, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



PostMod is proof that messageboard trolling has definitely evolved, that is one certainty, lol.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> [
> 1) close.....you have to have some form of evidence that exhibits the claim passes at least an initial test of being falsifiable........



Okay, so now that I've proven that evolution is falsifiable, what's the next test?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 25, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


I deny you've made any attempt to answer the question seriously.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 25, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I'm sorry....there seems to be static in your transmission.....did you ask about evidence for 150k year old AGW?.....


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 25, 2014)

...and the world revolves around Jerusalem, and the sun revolves around the earth....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 25, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> ...and the world revolves around Jerusalem, and the sun revolves around the earth....


and life crawled out of a mud puddle and human beings and yeast have a common ancestor.....


----------



## konradv (Aug 25, 2014)

Halleiuyah_man14 said:


> So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's DNA can kill it?
> Again, evolutionists are uncharacteristically silent on the subject. *They don't even have a working hypothesis about it.).*



That's completely untrue.  The working hypothesis is TIME.  With bacteria we're talking about an organism that can replicate in a matter of hours and has had billions of years to do it.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 25, 2014)

Creation happened over 13 billion years ago. After which, evolution commenced. Get OVER yourselves, already. 

You too, Shirley. And Frankly. 

My dear, I don't give a damn.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 25, 2014)

Halleiuyah_man14 said:


> LOL!  What silly ignorance to think "pond scum" might ever with time and chance evolve into a human body and brain the most complex well designed thing in the known universe. PLEASE!



No, of course not. What really happened was that Superhero Godman waved his magic wand, and everything appeared instantaneously! I mean, why would anyone question that?


----------



## konradv (Aug 25, 2014)

Halleiuyah_man14 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Halleiuyah_man14 said:
> ...



Ignorance is in closing one's mind.  What's silly is thinking anyone would dismiss the notion, just on your say so.


----------



## konradv (Aug 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > ...and the world revolves around Jerusalem, and the sun revolves around the earth....
> ...



Hmmm, could you finally be seeing the light?


----------



## BillyP (Aug 26, 2014)

Halleiuyah_man14 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Hey look, gysm has another sock.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Why not just acknowledge that you're going to sidestep questions put to you with your usual pointless babble?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > ...and the world revolves around Jerusalem, and the sun revolves around the earth....
> ...


Why don't you and the rest of the Christian Taliban actually challenge the science community with your creation model of gods, talking snakes and the result of fruit theft?

Have you read the news- biological organisms evolve, science cures disease and, as noted, the earth revolves around the sun. The prayer leader at your madrassah may instruct you differently, so the next time you need competent medical care, rattle bones and pray. 

Let us know how that works out for ya'


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> [
> 
> Do you deny that proof of intelligent design could falsify the theory of evolution?


I deny you've made any attempt to answer the question seriously.......[/QUOTE]

It never ceases to be fascinating how many different ways posters can react to losing an argument.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 26, 2014)

"]





Hollie said:


> [
> Why not just acknowledge that you're going to sidestep questions put to you with your usual pointless babble?



He's one of the messageboard types who thinks that in order to prove him wrong you have to get him to admit he's wrong.  Like if he doesn't say 'uncle' he hasn't lost the argument.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 26, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > I have to go with Sealybobo on this one.  I just don't think the line was that distinct.
> ...


 
I don't think the line is that clear.  For there to be viable offspring the two species have to be very close.  A homo sapien born to non-homo sapien parents will have no other homo sapien to mate with.  He/she will need to mate with another non-homo sapien, which makes the offspring what?  I just don't see sudden transition, but more of a gradual transition.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 26, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



I'm probably being unclear but I was just trying to point out that since every individual of the genus Homo has to be or have been either homo sapien or not homo sapien therefore there had to have been a first human.  Of course it was complex and gradual.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 26, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I will acknowledge I only use that sidestep when pointless babble is required to balance your pointless babble......if you choose to waste my time with comments about 6000 year old earths I will always respond with questions about your belief in 150k year old AGW......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 26, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> "]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've never lost an argument.....the longest discussion I've had over the years with an atheist lasted over 500 pages......


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > "]
> ...



lol, see what I mean?  ...and I'm guessing that 400 pages of that argument involved you denying or avoiding irrefutable facts.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 26, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


 
No.  I get what you are saying.  I just don't think it works that way.  But it is all speculation and a professional biologist I am not.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Yet, another sidestep.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> [
> I will acknowledge I only use that sidestep when pointless babble is required to balance your pointless babble......if you choose to waste my time with comments about 6000 year old earths I will always respond with questions about your belief in 150k year old AGW......



Since by your standards scientists can't prove the Earth isn't only 6000 years old, and since you believe anyway that faithbased belief is a legitimate alternative to science,

why are you implicitly denigrating the people who do in fact believe in the 6000 year old, or young Earth, 'theory'?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 26, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


and do you really believe you've quoted one of these irrefutable facts?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 26, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


yes, your paste of "6000 year old earth" was yet another sidestep....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 26, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


people who believe in a 6000 year old earth are free to believe whatever they wish, as are you.....however I do not not acknowledge their belief as a defense against MY arguments, since it is not what I believe.....if you wish to counter my arguments you need to address my arguments, not something you wish I had argued.....
to me, the repeated return to that attempt is nothing more than an admission you cannot counter the real argument raised......


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 26, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!
> 
> I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.
> 
> ...


religion, when it will be truly understood and practiced, will be seen for what it is evolution. We live in a time when it's thought that making and saving as much money anyway we can by using our "intelligence and or violent shrudeness" will some home make us more apt to survive and thrive individually. this  myth will soon be debunked as even the riches fleas won't be able to flee the soon to come impacts of this silly way of "life" upon other's deaths. This will be called evolution by some and religion by others. A rose by any other name will still smell just as sweet to those who nose this truth.


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 26, 2014)

hallejualah? you wanna elaborate?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



But I bet you if you talked to a scientist, they would explain how and why exactly you are wrong.  If you weren't wrong science wouldn't be so sure of evolution.  Do I know for sure?  No.  But I'm willing to go with science over YOU, just because you know how to spin scientific evidence.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 26, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Or what most of them have eventually done is to cherry pick.  What was thought to be fact 50 years ago Christians know understand are just stories to teach a message, not to be taken literally.  But how did the church sell those stories for hundreds of years?  They sold them as facts.  Now they admit they lied.  Or the ones who still think the stories in the bible are literal at least we all look at them and laugh at their level of stupidity.  No one except for themselves takes themselves seriously.  Now the only christians taken seriously admit that the mosus, noah and adam stories are all just made up fables.  

NOW the next trick is to get them to see that Jesus didn't do miracles, wasn't born from a virgin and didn't rise from the dead.  Funny christians can't seem to let this one go.  

So as we explose christians for being full of shit, they end up admitting that all the stories in the bible are just allegories.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



The status of the real argument at this point is

you deny that the theory of Evolution is falsifiable.  Since you are unequivocally wrong about that,

that argument is over.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 26, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Is God Falsifiable?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 26, 2014)

Mad Scientist said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > (skims for the science part...)
> ...



I'm trying to figure out which religion I should join.

a.  Mormons say all the other Christians are false religions that have been led astray a long time ago.  Jesus told Joseph Smith this in 1800.  Is this a false religion?

b.  Catholics say they are the one true original faith and all other christians are just spin offs.  

c.  Born agains say if you haven't been baptized as an adult you haven't been saved yet, so all the other christians who were baptized when we were babies are going to hell.

d.  Presbyterians, lutherans, non denomination, baptists, greek orthodox.  If you were born into one of these but you were baptized as children, defend yourselves against the born agains please.

e.  Muslims.  Maybe god did talk to him 500 years ago.

f.  Jews.  Maybe they were right and Jesus wasn't the Messiah.  

g.  None of the above.

I pick g.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...





sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I expect if we asked a scientist if the scientific theory required that something be falsifiable before it can be considered a scientific theory, she would say, "well of course it does!"......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 26, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


if I am unequivocally wrong you should be able to demonstrate how its falsifiable.....I asked earlier, I don't believe you responded.....if you spent the next six million years trying to get a single celled organism to evolve into a multicelled organism and failed, would you conclude that the hypothesis was false?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 26, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


God is not a scientific hypothesis.....


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



No.  When science gets together god NEVER comes up.  

God is made up in your human mind.  Sorry to be the one that breaks it to you.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 26, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


/shrugs.....likewise your claim that humans evolved from single celled organisms.....the difference is, you don't realize science isn't involved.....


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Huh?  You theists seem to be caught up in this thing about single cell organisms turning into multiple cell organisms.  I'm not a scientists.  I suggest you ask science what they think about that and if they say they don't know yet rest assured they will keep looking until they find the answers.  

What they will not do is say god did it and just stop looking for the truth.  To you theists god is the truth but science has proven your god(s) wrong so many times it's sickening.  It's called God of the Gaps.  Every time we fill in a gap your god gets smaller and smaller.  Your god use to be huge before the Age of Enlightenment.  Then people stopped saying "oh that was god" every time thunder or lightening happened.  They started looking for exactly what caused lightening and thunder and science proved it was not god.  And since then every other argument you've had for god, science has refuted.  There is no argument for god that doesn't come with at least some fatal flaw.  

So stop calling something you can't even prove "the truth".  The truth is you have swallowed a lie that your parents swallowed and their parents and every generation dating back to when man first made up god.  Does that scare you that there is no god?

How come something had to create us?  If something HAD TO create us, who created God?  Why do we have to have a creator but your god doesn't?  And how do you know your god doesn't have parents?  

And shouldn't there be two gods?  Funny you believers in god keep crying it takes a man and a woman to make a baby but your god seems to be able to produce by himself.  Interesting?  

But then again before we came up with only 1 god we use to believe in multiple gods.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 26, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


if you can't even prove that a single celled organism evolved into a multicelled organism, how do you expect to prove that a single celled organism evolved into a human being......


----------



## konradv (Aug 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> if you can't even prove that a single celled organism evolved into a multicelled organism, how do you expect to prove that a single celled organism evolved into a human being......



It's been proven repeatedly.  Pretending like it hasn't, is just a game you're playing.  At what point does this kind of deception become SIN?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 27, 2014)

konradv said:


> Who ever claimed the Bible was dictated?  I think you have it confused with the Koran(The Recitation).  The Bible was *written* by men,* inspired* by God.



No, the Koran was the result of Muhamed listening to a spirit while he had seizures.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 27, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> ...and the world revolves around Jerusalem, and the sun revolves around the earth....



The world revolves around you and earth is your mother.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 27, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> See?  This is what you're up against when you try to reason with the 'faithful'.
> 
> ...why is that true?...because it's in the Bible...why does being in the Bible make it true?...because it's the Bible...
> 
> That, for better or for worse, is the irrationality of religion.



Faithful atheists argue that their conclusions are true because their high school teacher told them it was true. And the irony is that atheists believe truth is relative so the mere act of arguing over what is true is purely absurd, yet they do it anyway.

Regardless, you know your statement is dishonest to begin with because I have given you proof on several occasions for the validity of the Bible.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 27, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


 You finally admit it's a religion.  That's a step forward.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 27, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



I wish it was.  Then I could be a preacher and swindle my members and get tax breaks.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 27, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 
Nothing is stopping you.  Admittedly, you are picking a religion with a small market place, but you could probably make a decent living at it.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 27, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



I'm sure that's what they told Christians in the year 1.

San Diego Atheist Group Looks To Spread Non-Belief KPBS

Ardent Atheists Spread Their Reverence For Disbelief NPR

As a businessman I see a lot of potential for growth.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 27, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 
the bumper sticker market alone could keep the roof overhead and food on the table.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 27, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Do you think I would trust Christians to not key my car or flatten my tires if they read my atheist bumper sticker?  

But notice I have never once vandalized a theists car when they put those stupid honk if you love jesus stickers on their cars.  I should pull up along side them and honk and smile and when they smile back flip them off and speed off laughing.  LOL.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 27, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> the bumper sticker market alone could keep the roof overhead and food on the table.



Do you think I would trust Christians to not key my car or flatten my tires if they read my atheist bumper sticker? 

But notice I have never once vandalized a theists car when they put those stupid honk if you love jesus stickers on their cars.  I should pull up along side them and honk and smile and when they smile back flip them off and speed off laughing.  LOL.[/QUOTE]

I had a Darwin fish on the back of my truck for years, never got keyed even once.  I'd say you're just being paranoid.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 27, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > the bumper sticker market alone could keep the roof overhead and food on the table.
> ...



I had a Darwin fish on the back of my truck for years, never got keyed even once.  I'd say you're just being paranoid.[/QUOTE]

Big difference between Darwin and Atheism.  Put a God's Not Real sticker on your car and see what happens.


----------



## PratchettFan (Aug 27, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Big difference between Darwin and Atheism.  Put a God's Not Real sticker on your car and see what happens.[/QUOTE]

The reason I am pretty much confined to this particular part of the board is that the people here are relatively sane.  Even the most rabid of us here don't hold a candle to what happens in the political sections.  Those people are utterly insane.  Yet I have seen both conservative and liberal stickers on bumpers without any sign of problems.  I repeat, you're just being paranoid.  No one cares what you put on your bumper.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 29, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Actually, you made a mistake on "c" because being "born again" doesn't have to do with being baptized. Yes, there are people that claim you must be baptized or you are going to hell, but that would be adding to the finished work of the cross, therefore that would be heresy. With that correction, all of the options in your list have one thread in common (okay, make that two): they are man made and they either subtracted from or added to the Bible. So, yes, option "g" would be the best choice. But answering that gets you only to the realization that man made religion is a bad thing. You must then accept Christ as your personal Savior and enter into a relationship with him. God's wants to know you personally. 

No, it has nothing to do with going to church, living in a Christian country, being baptized as a baby, wearing holy underwear,  bowing down in prayer several times a day to a rock, doing funky rituals, trying to do good things. No, what God wants is you to surrender yourself and become his. To recognize that your ways aren't good enough and that you need to return to your father. He wants to be with you, to be your companion, friend and father just as he created Adam to be in the garden before Adam fell in sin thereby severing his relationship because he chose to walk after his fleshly eyes rather than his spiritual senses.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 29, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Big difference between Darwin and Atheism.  Put a God's Not Real sticker on your car and see what happens.



So do you have Santa isn't real, the easter bunny isn't real, reality isn't real, the flying spaghetti monster isn't real, outer space isn't real bumper stickers on your car too? Or do you have just a particular bone to pick with God?

It's your right to have that sticker on there, but it is absurd. I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster or the easter bunny, but I don't take the time to put stickers on my car slandering them.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Aug 29, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> So do you have Santa isn't real, the easter bunny isn't real, reality isn't real, the flying spaghetti monster isn't real, outer space isn't real bumper stickers on your car too? Or do you have just a particular bone to pick with God?
> 
> It's your right to have that sticker on there, but it is absurd. I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster or the easter bunny, but I don't take the time to put stickers on my car slandering them.



That would be freedom of speech. Why should you be offended by it just because you disagree?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Aug 29, 2014)

PratchettFan said:


> The reason I am pretty much confined to this particular part of the board is that the people here are relatively sane.  Even the most rabid of us here don't hold a candle to what happens in the political sections.  Those people are utterly insane.  Yet I have seen both conservative and liberal stickers on bumpers without any sign of problems.  I repeat, you're just being paranoid.  No one cares what you put on your bumper.



Sometimes - there are always nut cases who will make a big deal out of nothing and go way too far to make a point, but even with pagan bumper stickers on my car, no one ever tried to mess with me because of them.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 31, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> That would be freedom of speech. Why should you be offended by it just because you disagree?



Where did I say I was offended? If you read my post, I said that it was their right to do so (i.e. freedom of speech). I am not offended by stupidity. No, I am only bringing to light how much people are obsessed with hating the God of the Bible.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Aug 31, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > That would be freedom of speech. Why should you be offended by it just because you disagree?
> ...



Allow me to rephrase the question - why would you call someone expressing his/her opinion, "stupid" or "absurd?"

Speaking out against something, aught to be encouraged.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 31, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...


????....why would anyone want to encourage stupidity?.......


----------



## Hollie (Aug 31, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > That would be freedom of speech. Why should you be offended by it just because you disagree?
> ...


You're suffering from a bit of paranoia. I know of no one who spends time hating your gods or anyone else's gods. What I do see is a reaction to extremist Christian groups who have decided that their gods need to be installed into both the public and private domain, the public school system for one example. 

We have a clearly defined history depicting religious tenets as being biased toward themselves and poorly disposed toward competitive belief systems and ideas contrary to the religious dogma. We also have a clearly defined history that shows extremist Christians are not the embracing, accepting lot you might hope to portray. This nation is, by form of crafting, a nation of secular laws with divisions of church and state. 

Let's keep it that way. You're free to believe in any and all gods as you wish. I'm free from your compulsion.


----------



## guno (Aug 31, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > See?  This is what you're up against when you try to reason with the 'faithful'.
> ...



yea, just to name a few: talking snakes unicorns and the sun standing still  and the sun revolves around the earth is reality to ignorant boarder line retards , Atheists have actually read the bible and are more educated then your garden variety bible thumpers with barely a high school or home 'skool' "education"

Survey Atheists Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious The Two-Way NPR


----------



## guno (Aug 31, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > See?  This is what you're up against when you try to reason with the 'faithful'.
> ...


----------



## indiajo (Aug 31, 2014)

guno said:


> [, Atheists have actually read the bible and are more educated then your garden variety bible thumpers with barely a high school or home 'skool' "education"
> 
> Survey Atheists Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious The Two-Way NPR



Yeah, that's the ironic part of it.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 31, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Allow me to rephrase the question - why would you call someone expressing his/her opinion, "stupid" or "absurd?"
> 
> Speaking out against something, aught to be encouraged.



I don't encourage anyone to rail against the Easter bunny, because it is a waste of their precious time. They could be spending their time doing positive things.

Railing and thrashing against the wind is a vain and futile exercise. Therefore I consider it "stupid." If you are going to beat up on something, make sure your punches are landing on something that actually exists.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 31, 2014)

Hollie said:


> You're suffering from a bit of paranoia. I know of no one who spends time hating your gods or anyone else's gods. What I do see is a reaction to extremist Christian groups who have decided that their gods need to be installed into both the public and private domain, the public school system for one example.
> 
> We have a clearly defined history depicting religious tenets as being biased toward themselves and poorly disposed toward competitive belief systems and ideas contrary to the religious dogma. We also have a clearly defined history that shows extremist Christians are not the embracing, accepting lot you might hope to portray. This nation is, by form of crafting, a nation of secular laws with divisions of church and state.
> 
> Let's keep it that way. You're free to believe in any and all gods as you wish. I'm free from your compulsion.



No, it is you that is suffering from paranoia. I am merely pointing out the futility of your actions and you start accusing me of being paranoid. Meanwhile you go on a rant of how you think Christians are out to get you and get you to stop indoctrinating students with moral perversions. Let's see the definition of "paranoia" (and I will quote from a non-christian site so as to not taint you with any "religious dogma")



> *Paranoia* /ˌpærəˈnɔɪə/ (adjective: *paranoid* /ˈpærənɔɪd/) is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often[1] to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself (e.g. "_Everyone is out to get me_").


 source: Wikipedia

Let's compare that with your quote.



Hollie said:


> What I do see is a reaction to extremist Christian groups who have decided that their gods need to be installed into both the public and private domain, the public school system for one example.



and your friend sealybobo



sealybobo said:


> Do you think I would trust Christians to not key my car or flatten my tires if they read my atheist bumper sticker?
> 
> But notice I have never once vandalized a theists car when they put those stupid honk if you love jesus stickers on their cars.  I should pull up along side them and honk and smile and when they smile back flip them off and speed off laughing.  LOL.



It looks to me like someone is suffering from "Everyone is out to get me" syndrome.





Hollie said:


> I know of *no one* who spends time hating your gods or anyone else's gods.



No one huh? Not even one?





You must not get out much do you? Paranoia can lead to hiding under ones blanket in fear of reality.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 31, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You're suffering from a bit of paranoia. I know of no one who spends time hating your gods or anyone else's gods. What I do see is a reaction to extremist Christian groups who have decided that their gods need to be installed into both the public and private domain, the public school system for one example.
> ...



Well, sorry, but there are no futilities of my actions. I’m merely watching and chuckling as the straw men you stand up are mowed down like so much winter wheat.

As a means to ease your paranoia, write an email to your most trusted creation ministry advising of those entities that haunt your world.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Aug 31, 2014)

guno said:


> yea, just to name a few: talking snakes unicorns and the sun standing still  and the sun revolves around the earth is reality to ignorant boarder line retards , Atheists have actually read the bible and are more educated then your garden variety bible thumpers with barely a high school or home 'skool' "education"
> 
> Survey Atheists Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious The Two-Way NPR



You claim that "Atheists have actually read the bible" and use the above noted article to support your claim yet the article you quote is not about reading the Bible but about how "Atheists Agnostics Know More About Religion..." thereby supporting my position. I agree, you are a very religious bunch.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 31, 2014)

indiajo said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > [, Atheists have actually read the bible and are more educated then your garden variety bible thumpers with barely a high school or home 'skool' "education"
> ...


its a shame we can't get some of the educated ones to come here and post.....


----------



## konradv (Aug 31, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> indiajo said:
> 
> 
> > guno said:
> ...



How would you know, if someone educated has posted?  That would require a certain level of education on your part, not just a lock step belief in a certain subject which clouds the way you look at all other subjects.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Aug 31, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > indiajo said:
> ...


I would assume someone educated might be able to answer the questions I ask.....I certainly know that no one who's posted so far can.....


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 2, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You're suffering from a bit of paranoia. I know of no one who spends time hating your gods or anyone else's gods. What I do see is a reaction to extremist Christian groups who have decided that their gods need to be installed into both the public and private domain, the public school system for one example.
> ...



_I’m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what – your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess we’re even._

Atheists are most often called ‘militant’ when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression.

Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.

A ‘militant’ atheist will debate in a University theatre or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death, incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince children they are flawed and worthless – all under the instruction of their imagined ‘god’ or holy book.

It can be argued that there is no such thing as a ‘militant’ atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a ‘militant’ atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 3, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> I’m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you.



Thanks for admitting you are insensitive towards other's beliefs. 



sealybobo said:


> But guess what – your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess we’re even.



It appears you got belief systems a little mixed up there. The "your" you are referring to sounds a lot like Islam.

I love science. It is fairy-tales that I reject.

As for brainwashing, I leave that up to Eric Holder. 



sealybobo said:


> Atheists are most often called ‘militant’ when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression.





sealybobo said:


> Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.



You do agree atheist do kill people they don't agree with, right? Insensitive arguments are just the "preferable" route until it can be determined that the opposition is unwilling to convert to atheism. 



sealybobo said:


> A ‘militant’ atheist will debate in a University theatre or appeal for the separation of religion and government.



Some do. Some get violent while others shoot people.



sealybobo said:


> A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death, incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince children they are flawed and worthless – all under the instruction of their imagined ‘god’ or holy book.



I agree. 

But don't forget, it is Christians who will fight for the precious life of that "flawed and worthless" child while the atheist insists that it is nothing but a "flawed and worthless" fetus that is "restricting" the reproductive rights of a woman. 

Don't forget, that it is Christians that will fight for the right of women in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, while the rest of the world turns a blind eye. 

Don't forget, that it is Christians that will instruct their children that they are fearfully and wonderfully made with special purpose which is why they were "Endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights" and that without a Creator there are no rights that cannot be taken away. 



sealybobo said:


> It can be argued that there is no such thing as a ‘militant’ atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a ‘militant’ atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods.



Yes, that argument would be called denial.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 4, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I’m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you.
> ...



Islam is a religion honey.  They believe in god too.  They are a perfect example of how belief in god isn't helping.  Is it?  Does the guy who chopped off that guys head believe in god?  Bet he does.  He, like you Christians, are able to justify your murder/death/kills.  War and Death Penalty for example.

I saw a show on late term abortion.  You anti abortion people are mad is all I can say.  You say you "support" the unborn babies but not really.  Not financially.  You don't give free babysitting.  You don't want to pay for the schooling or healthcare.  And to force a couple to take care of a baby that's going to be born incapable of bending it's limbs is MAD.  Fuck you anti abortion mother fuckers.  Most of you if you were in the wrong situation would find your hypocritical asses in the doctors office asking for an abortion too and that is what makes me sick about you.  

No I don't agree atheists kill people who disagree.  I think mostly only religious people do that.  Maybe Christians don't anymore but they did in the late 1600's just 300 years ago.  Salem Witch Trials.  Burned women alive if they were even accused.  These are the ancestors who passed on their ignorant superstitions to their kids and so on to you morons today.  Why believe the churches?  They are a big part of that shady past.  

_“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”_ – Steven Weinberg

How many of you Christians are doing anything about the women in Afganistan?  Clearly not enough.  How much do you care on a scale of 1-10.  Anyways, on a side note to that, a woman said at some point the women of Afganistan have to stand up for themselves.  That's going to be hard but it is necessary for change to happen.  They won't or can't.  Long story short is I say we arm the women of Afganistan and train them to fight the Taliban.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 6, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Islam is a religion honey.  They believe in god too.  They are a perfect example of how belief in god isn't helping.  Is it?  Does the guy who chopped off that guys head believe in god?  Bet he does.  He, like you Christians, are able to justify your murder/death/kills.  War and Death Penalty for example.



I see, so you are trying to use the "because Islam does bad things and Islam is a religion therefore every religion does what Islam does" argument. Be careful, Atheism is considered a religion too.



sealybobo said:


> Islam is a religion honey.



Honey is much sweater than religion. And it is actually good for you too. 



sealybobo said:


> They are a perfect example of how belief in god isn't helping.  Is it?



No, man made religion isn't helping. It is hurting. We have a whole bunch of people thinking they can just get by on their own good works.




sealybobo said:


> I saw a show on late term abortion.  You anti abortion people are mad is all I can say.  You say you "support" the unborn babies but not really.  Not financially.  You don't give free babysitting.  You don't want to pay for the schooling or healthcare.  And to force a couple to take care of a baby that's going to be born incapable of bending it's limbs is MAD.  Fuck you anti abortion mother fuckers.  Most of you if you were in the wrong situation would find your hypocritical asses in the doctors office asking for an abortion too and that is what makes me sick about you.



It sounds like you have a lot of pent up frustration. Religious perhaps?



sealybobo said:


> No I don't agree atheists kill people who disagree.  I think mostly only religious people do that.  Maybe Christians don't anymore but they did in the late 1600's just 300 years ago.  Salem Witch Trials.  Burned women alive if they were even accused.  These are the ancestors who passed on their ignorant superstitions to their kids and so on to you morons today.  Why believe the churches?  They are a big part of that shady past.



Well there are many that do, but you can be in denial if you want to.


_


sealybobo said:



			“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
		
Click to expand...

_


sealybobo said:


> – Steven Weinberg



What is evil?



sealybobo said:


> How many of you Christians are doing anything about the women in Afganistan?  Clearly not enough.  How much do you care on a scale of 1-10.  Anyways, on a side note to that, a woman said at some point the women of Afganistan have to stand up for themselves.  That's going to be hard but it is necessary for change to happen.  They won't or can't.  Long story short is I say we arm the women of Afganistan and train them to fight the Taliban.



There are many Christians preaching the gospel, setting people free. And there are many Christians petitioning the UN to get them to do something about it (what a lost cause, but at least they are trying).


----------



## Hollie (Sep 6, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Islam is a religion honey.  They believe in god too.  They are a perfect example of how belief in god isn't helping.  Is it?  Does the guy who chopped off that guys head believe in god?  Bet he does.  He, like you Christians, are able to justify your murder/death/kills.  War and Death Penalty for example.
> ...


What is it that you think Christianity is setting people free from?

Instilling fear and superstition is the inverse of what you claim. Religions don't want questioning about the precepts they espouse, they want obedience to the dogma. That's not setting anyone free. It's constraining them. Remember that any system that doesn't allow self-criticism and/or questioning suggests a system that has something to hide.

Religions have something suspicious about them for being so impervious to questioning, and second, actually questioning the religions doesn't really bring forth the horror and doom the theists claim it will. It used to be said that plagues and earthquakes came about from god's anger-- now that we know that such claims are nonsense, the theists have had to roll back the participation of their gawds in man's affairs, This is *very* convenient for people who wish to make a claim that cannot be investigated for its veracity.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Sep 6, 2014)

Hollie said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


ignorance.....


----------



## Hollie (Sep 6, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


Tales and fables of talking snakes is keeping you under the bootheel of ignorance.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Sep 6, 2014)

you are not yet free......


----------



## Hollie (Sep 6, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> you are not yet free......


I certainly am. I'm free of the compulsion of religious belief.

Ultimately, I have hope that the irresistible allure of truth and knowledge and man's overwhelming desire to be free of tyranny will rid the world of all remaining totalitarian ideologies, including yours.

Why do you feel a compulsion to avoid accountability for what your religion has done to humanity when manifest reality would demand that you simply accept facts? Too difficult?

So, anyway... yeah. There’s no compulsion in religion©.. Tell your friends.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 6, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!
> 
> I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.
> 
> ...



What about Jews and Muslims?  Do they need to wake up on this too?  Does it bother you that Jews say Jesus was not the son of God?  

Us atheists are just like Jews and Muslims.  We don't recognize the New Testament as being fact and when you claim this Jesus was the son of god and did miracles, like Jews and Muslims we call BULLSHIT.

Are they going to hell too?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Sep 6, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > you are not yet free......
> ...


not of ignorance.....


----------



## konradv (Sep 6, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> I would assume someone educated might be able to answer the questions I ask.....I certainly know that no one who's posted so far can.....



That assumes an ability to recognize that the questions have been answered.  I have yet to see that in you.  Unless, this is all just an exercise in intellectual dishonesty in which you deny everything, regardless of what is said.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 6, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Yes. Free from the ignorance imposed by partisan religious belief such as yours.

While we humans have evolved such qualities as reasoning, etc., etc., most organized religions seek to squelch those attributes that pursue knowledge. In fact, if we are to be honest, we must acknowledge that the religious institutions expect us to be obedient, compliant, submissive, etc. to the ideologies dogma


A child is _bereft_ a critical thinking platform to make valid choices, which is why they need caring for. Look at the terminology of religious invocations:
Be as a child
Faith alone
Belief, and it shall be
I am the shepherd, you are like sheep…

Notice a theme there? Not once are we extolled: "Rigidly question, for I the LORD hath made thee with a brain, and thee hath the world before thee to explore". No, instead its surrender the brain I gave you.


----------



## MaryL (Sep 6, 2014)

Are you kidding me? Evolution is a therory, not a religion. Science  made the device you use to post here, and the internet itself. Using logic and deduction, not faith or superstitious dogma. So, evolution is a scientific  theory, and, if it  is  wrong, it will be corrected because atheist scientists like provable facts.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Sep 6, 2014)

konradv said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > I would assume someone educated might be able to answer the questions I ask.....I certainly know that no one who's posted so far can.....
> ...


feel free to point to the post where this occurred......oh wait, you can't.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Sep 6, 2014)

MaryL said:


> Science  made the device you use to post here .


no, I'm pretty sure it was a factory.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Sep 6, 2014)

MaryL said:


> and, if it  is  wrong, it will be corrected because atheist scientists like provable facts.


apparently that's where we stand.......waiting for some of those provable facts from an atheist scientist......


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> What is it that you think Christianity is setting people free from?
> 
> Instilling fear and superstition is the inverse of what you claim. *Religions don't want questioning about the precepts they espouse, they want obedience to the dogma*. That's not setting anyone free. It's constraining them. *Remember that any system that doesn't allow self-criticism and/or questioning suggests a system that has something to hide.*
> 
> *Religions have something suspicious about them for being so impervious to questioning*, and second, actually questioning the religions doesn't really bring forth the horror and doom the theists claim it will. It used to be said that plagues and earthquakes came about from god's anger-- now that we know that such claims are nonsense, the theists have had to roll back the participation of their gawds in man's affairs, This is *very* convenient for people who wish to make a claim that cannot be investigated for its veracity.





I agree. That's why if you question Darwinian Evolutionism, the prophets of evolutionism will immediately attack you, threaten you, fire you and/or use any other means of silencing dissent.

And yes, you believe that "Mother Earth" is the one to blame for all of the acts of nature, no different than the ancient superstitious people of the past.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2014)

MaryL said:


> Are you kidding me? Evolution is a therory, not a religion. Science  made the device you use to post here, and the internet itself. Using logic and deduction, not faith or superstitious dogma. So, evolution is a scientific  theory, and, if it  is  wrong, it will be corrected because atheist scientists like provable facts.



You apparently don't understand what science is, which is not surprising since you blindly follow after the religious evolutionistic dogma. Science is about visual inspection of the world around us thru observing and experimentation. It has NOTHING to do with making things. That would be technology. 

The device that you use to post here is designed just as the world was designed and created just as the world was created by a Creator. The design and creation of the device was accomplished using logic and intelligence which requires that the intelligence be placed into the object. The parts did not assemble themselves. The computer code that you use to post messages was also the product of a design. The code did not evolve but rather had to be intelligently constructed.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> I certainly am. I'm free of the compulsion of religious belief.



You are slave to your flesh. What your flesh tells you to do, you do.



Hollie said:


> Ultimately, I have hope that the irresistible allure of truth<snip>



But wait, you don't believe that there is absolute truth. 



Hollie said:


> Ultimately, I have hope that the irresistible allure of truth and knowledge and man's overwhelming desire to be free of tyranny will rid the world of all remaining totalitarian ideologies, including yours.




Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
(Psalms 2:1-5 KJV)




Hollie said:


> Why do you feel a compulsion to avoid accountability for what your religion has done to humanity when manifest reality would demand that you simply accept facts? Too difficult?
> 
> So, anyway... yeah. There’s no compulsion in religion©.. Tell your friends.



Hmmm.... facts.... Oh yeah, it is a fact that you have sinned and come short of the glory of God. It is a fact that God will judge those who have rejected his Son. Repent and be saved. And yes, do tell your friends.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > and, if it  is  wrong, it will be corrected because atheist scientists like provable facts.
> ...


You were apparently denied the opportunity to attend science classes. 

What a shame that people like you are convinced that the science disciplines are a vast, worldwide conspiracy intended to deny biblical absurdities.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly am. I'm free of the compulsion of religious belief.
> ...


You thumpers are a scary bunch. It's a bit of a stretch to claim that biblical tales and fables are "facts". And to claim that your gods are going to judge anyone is speculation on your part. 

Why do you feel a need to threaten me with the fears and superstitions that haunt your existence?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > What is it that you think Christianity is setting people free from?
> ...


Of course, you made no attempt to address what I wrote. Instead, you needed to defend your dogma with silly conspiracy theories.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



not true....but I didn't have an atheist scientist as a teacher.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Why do you feel a need to threaten me with the fears and superstitions that haunt your existence?



we don't want you complaining to God on Judgment Day that nobody warned you......


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So, you were indoctrinated early with the dogma you now hope to defend. That's fitting!

There is a brightness across the land called literacy and education and knowledge, and exploration and science, each demonstrable, each progressing the human condition, each giving us hope for a better tomorrow. The hatreds that you espouse for science and the knowledge it brings will always be your worst enemy.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> There is a brightness across the land called literacy and education and knowledge, and exploration and science, each demonstrable, each progressing the human condition, each giving us hope for a better tomorrow.



when you grow up I hope you make the best of it.......


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you feel a need to threaten me with the fears and superstitions that haunt your existence?
> ...


Many religions use fear and intimidation as a form of mind control to gain and keep their members. Christianity uses heaven and hell, the concept of sin, a corrupted nature no one can escape, the requirement of a savior as a means to coerce behavior supportive of the religion. The religion cloaks itself under dynamics which affects behavior (teaching the doctrine of the religion is inerrant even in the face of overwhelming proof contrary to the religious doctrine), and psychological (gods with a vested interest in the behaviors of men, who can see their sins, who are able to mete out justice -- all of these are severe and inescapable mental leveragings that dictate human behavior-- i.e., psychologies.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > There is a brightness across the land called literacy and education and knowledge, and exploration and science, each demonstrable, each progressing the human condition, each giving us hope for a better tomorrow.
> ...


Let's explore your inability to offer a coherent comment, shall we?

I don't believe in your version of gods or saviors or demons. But I live a good life. I've even saved a life. But I don't accept the myths surrounding De' hey-zeus. So I should go to hell because I don't believe? That's ridiculous.

A book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men. And honestly, it's you hate-mongering extremists who are the ones who need to grow up.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Sep 7, 2014)

Can prove evolution's true by raising successive generations of various short-lived insects. Mayflies and the like live about two weeks. Can raise multiple generations and show how they change with each one. 

Drug resistant germs are an even faster example of this. If life didn't evolve, we wouldn't have drug resistant strains of various diseases.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> So, you were indoctrinated early with the dogma you now hope to defend. That's fitting!



And you weren't



Hollie said:


> There is a brightness across the land called literacy and education and knowledge, and exploration and science, each demonstrable, each progressing the human condition, each giving us hope for a better tomorrow.



What is better? Who thinks it is better? Who determines if it is better? Better than what? How do you know it is better?

Please explain your enlightened logic.



Hollie said:


> The hatreds that you espouse for science and the knowledge it brings will always be your worst enemy.



I don't hate science. I love science. I just hate fairy tales such as Darwinian Evolutionism.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Can prove evolution's true by raising successive generations of various short-lived insects. Mayflies and the like live about two weeks. Can raise multiple generations and show how they change with each one.
> 
> Drug resistant germs are an even faster example of this. If life didn't evolve, we wouldn't have drug resistant strains of various diseases.



And the flies become?

And the germs become?

No one challenges micro-evolution.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Let's explore your inability to offer a coherent comment, shall we?
> 
> I don't believe in your version of gods or saviors or demons. But I live a good life. I've even saved a life. But I don't accept the myths surrounding De' hey-zeus. So I should go to hell because I don't believe? That's ridiculous.
> 
> A book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men. And honestly, it's you hate-mongering extremists who are the ones who need to grow up.



Have you ever told a lie?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Many religions use fear and intimidation as a form of mind control to gain and keep their members. Christianity uses heaven and hell, the concept of sin, a corrupted nature no one can escape, the requirement of a savior as a means to coerce behavior supportive of the religion. The religion cloaks itself under dynamics which affects behavior (teaching the doctrine of the religion is inerrant even in the face of overwhelming proof contrary to the religious doctrine), and psychological (gods with a vested interest in the behaviors of men, who can see their sins, who are able to mete out justice -- all of these are severe and inescapable mental leveragings that dictate human behavior-- i.e., psychologies.



The government uses fear to tell you that if you go to close to the edge of the Grand Canyon you might fall of and die, or that if you smoke a pack of cigarettes you might die of lung cancer, or that if you drink a large soft drink you might become fat. Since when did warning people become a bad thing?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > So, you were indoctrinated early with the dogma you now hope to defend. That's fitting!
> ...


Ah. "Darwinian Evolutionism."  

Such terms are used exclusively at fundie Christian ministries. They represent the revulsion for science that is at the core of religious fundamentalism. In just a few slogans, the fundie cranks can encapsulate their fear of science and their loathing for knowledge.
.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> You thumpers are a scary bunch. It's a bit of a stretch to claim that biblical tales and fables are "facts". And to claim that your gods are going to judge anyone is speculation on your part.
> 
> Why do you feel a need to threaten me with the fears and superstitions that haunt your existence?



No one is threatening you. I don't feel the need to rail against someone who puts up a traffic cone or sign that warns me of impending danger.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Many religions use fear and intimidation as a form of mind control to gain and keep their members. Christianity uses heaven and hell, the concept of sin, a corrupted nature no one can escape, the requirement of a savior as a means to coerce behavior supportive of the religion. The religion cloaks itself under dynamics which affects behavior (teaching the doctrine of the religion is inerrant even in the face of overwhelming proof contrary to the religious doctrine), and psychological (gods with a vested interest in the behaviors of men, who can see their sins, who are able to mete out justice -- all of these are severe and inescapable mental leveragings that dictate human behavior-- i.e., psychologies.
> ...


Yours are the laughable attempts at analogy that you should abandon quickly.

Your claims to partisan gawds are utterly absent substantiation. Your hope to use fear and intimidation to further your extremist beliefs is what many  people find objectionable and offensive about religious extremists. You don't quite understand that using your religion like a bloody truncheon only further weakens your already floundering claims to magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You thumpers are a scary bunch. It's a bit of a stretch to claim that biblical tales and fables are "facts". And to claim that your gods are going to judge anyone is speculation on your part.
> ...


You shouldn't be playing in the street.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


there is a carrot and there is a stick......some mules think the intent is to beat them with a carrot........


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Ah. "Darwinian Evolutionism."
> 
> Such terms are used exclusively at fundie Christian ministries. They represent the revulsion for science that is at the core of religious fundamentalism. In just a few slogans, the fundie cranks can encapsulate their fear of science and their loathing for knowledge.
> .



So you couldn't answer my questions could you? You had to resort to parroting attacks against Christians. 

No one has mentioned having a fear of science. Only you have mentioned having a fear of religions other than your own.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> You shouldn't be playing in the street.



Never said I was.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Not exactly a ringing endorsement for your religion which uses threats and intimidation as a motivational tool.

It's a rational position to use the heinous cruelties throughout the bibles to point out the amoral nature of the gods who are then asserted as a moral guide for human behavior. If one actually followed the god's example, their would be no end to the justification of execution that person would deserve. Gods in the bibles are capricious, cruel, and as the alleged author of all reality, as evil as can be (after all, _he_ created Lucifer, we didn't, right?).

A simple but effective debate approach against your religious belief is to point out the fundamental problems with the bibles as how they relate to "proof", (proofs being unavailable in terms of magic and supernaturalism), and then use content only to dismantle the claims of theists as to gawds' "inherent love and benevolence".


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You shouldn't be playing in the street.
> ...


Are you stealing traffic cones?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Yours are the laughable attempts at analogy that you should abandon quickly.
> 
> Your claims to partisan gawds are utterly absent substantiation. Your hope to use fear and intimidation to further your extremist beliefs is what many  people find objectionable and offensive about religious extremists. You don't quite understand that using your religion like a bloody truncheon only further weakens your already floundering claims to magic and supernaturalism.



You just have  a hatred for God that deludes you from seeing the truth. Your imagining things that don't exist.

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
(2 Thessalonians 2:11 KJV)


Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(Romans 1:21 KJV)


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Are you stealing traffic cones?



You continue to distort and to lie.... but what is new for atheists who define what their own morals are.

The only reason you can call yourself a good person is because you define what "good" is. 



THE LIGHT said:


> Have you ever told a lie?



Hollie, care to answer the question?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ah. "Darwinian Evolutionism."
> ...


You didn't ask any questions. You simply and mindlessly parroted the nonsense spewed by the various fundie Christian ministries. As nothing more than the typical, science loathing religious extremist, you're hoping to attack the disciplines of science as a failed means to prop up your religious dogma.

First, the religions either stand on their own or they don't. They are either internally sound or they aren't. Same for Evolution-- either it is a viable theory or it isn't and the record will show that it is assiduously attacked -- especially by creationists -- and they have not made a viable case to dismantle evolutionary science. In fact, as time goes on and the methods for testing evolutionary science become more exacting, the *facts* demonstrating evolution become better defined.

That has the effect of dismantling the fears and superstitions that buttress religious belief and that is why fundies rail against science.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Of course, you made no attempt to address what I wrote. Instead, you needed to defend your dogma with silly conspiracy theories.



Conspiracy theories? How ironic. That is what you spend your time doing.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Are you stealing traffic cones?
> ...


Sidestepping and evasion will not hide your failed arguments.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, you made no attempt to address what I wrote. Instead, you needed to defend your dogma with silly conspiracy theories.
> ...


Obviously, you're unable to defend that claim.

It is important for believers to accept that the history of their beliefs have caused much of the damage the world has seen, and not the other way around. Medicine, science, philosophy have all suffered because of the actions of men who were believers. It's too simplistic and irresponsible to shrug and say, "That's not god's fault, that's man's fault for being corrupt". By your own words, god created man, and gave man the abilities he has -- ultimately, man didn't create Satan, god did. Man didn't create sin, god did (unless you claim that man is so powerful as to have been able to create Satan-- but of course, Satan was "evil" before man was created-- have you ever read the Adam and Eve fable?)

According to the bible, the gods wiped out the vast majority of life on earth and left only Noah and his family (and apparently more animals than the Titanic could have carried). He promised never to destroy the world again by water, so next time (the Armageddon) he plans to use fire. God slaughters thousands and thousands by what the bible says, and he plans to slaughter billions more. Never has their been so evil a villain in all literature than Yahweh-- he kills relentlessly (Read the book of Joshua and try to imagine all those "rotten apple" kids and women-- all except those virgins, who were allowed to be taken away and raped by god's soldiers, the Hebrews)


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> You didn't ask any questions. You simply and mindlessly parroted the nonsense spewed by the various fundie Christian ministries. As nothing more than the typical, science loathing religious extremist, you're hoping to attack the disciplines of science as a failed means to prop up your religious dogma.



Imagine that. I did ask a question. Oh wait, I didn't have to imagine it, it really did happen.



THE LIGHT said:


> What is better? Who thinks it is better? Who determines if it is better? Better than what? How do you know it is better?






Hollie said:


> First, the religions either stand on their own or they don't. They are either internally sound or they aren't. Same for Evolution-- either it is a viable theory or it isn't and the record will show that it is assiduously attacked -- especially by creationists -- and they have not made a viable case to dismantle evolutionary science. In fact, as time goes on and the methods for testing evolutionary science become more exacting, the *facts* demonstrating evolution become better defined.



“The problem with those who are unable to see evolution, I think, is they don’t have imaginations,” Gail Kennedy, Associate Professor of Anthropology at UCLA




Hollie said:


> That has the effect of dismantling the fears and superstitions that buttress religious belief and that is why fundies rail against science.



There you go again. Imagining things.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Sidestepping and evasion will not hide your failed arguments.



So stop sidestepping and answer the question.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't ask any questions. You simply and mindlessly parroted the nonsense spewed by the various fundie Christian ministries. As nothing more than the typical, science loathing religious extremist, you're hoping to attack the disciplines of science as a failed means to prop up your religious dogma.
> ...


I didn't expect that you would make any attempt to defend biblical tales and fables in opposition to science. What you seem to object to is anyone pointing out that the bibles are infallible or contain errors. I submit that both are true. Since it you fundies who are insisting that the bibles are an accurate rendering of history and mankind, you are the only ones who actually are required to prove that. Extremists understand this and that’s why we are constantly confronted with the most profoundly silly examples of “scientific proofs” of the bibles. These “proofs” are not proofs at all and require the believer to be ignorant of both the bibles and science to believe them.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Sidestepping and evasion will not hide your failed arguments.
> ...


No. Waiting for you to offer something in support of your claims that evolutionary science is the global conspiracy you believe it to be.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You continue to sidestep because you know you can't answer my questions.

Hating God will not make the questions go away.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


Ignoring answers because they confound your fears and superstitions is a poor excuse for your behavior.

I know of no one who hates your gawds. It's those type of statements that only reinforce the perception that you're child-like and too immature to be participating in these threads.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Ignoring answers because they confound your fears and superstitions is a poor excuse for your behavior.
> 
> I know of no one who hates your gawds. It's those type of statements that only reinforce the perception that you're child-like and too immature to be participating in these threads.



I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ignoring answers because they confound your fears and superstitions is a poor excuse for your behavior.
> ...


You're not waiting. You're still spamming the thread hoping to sidestep my response to your silly questions which you are unable to address.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 7, 2014)

You can't answer the questions can you?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> You can't answer the questions can you?


Already did. 

You can't even come close to offering a response so you spam the thread.

Is that what De' hey-Zeus would do?

Would the gawds approve of your dishonest tactics?


----------



## Genevieve (Sep 7, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!
> 
> I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.
> 
> ...



Anything can be a religion................  religion is really everything and nothing.
Don't worry about it.

Evolution/ Adaptation to environment occurs.
The adaptation (as I prefer to call it) is the slow process  our Creator uses to grow things in this world.  Nothing begins full of age (except maybe the chicken; we aren't sure).  Things start as atoms,  then molecules, then cells, then seeds then sprouts (and so on).  That's how God made it.  A slow process.

I don't care if someone decides there is no God and that this mystical, brainless  "evolution" thing did it all.
That doesn't change what IS now does it?
Of course not.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


why were you frightened of the carrot, Hollie?......


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Why are you making claims you cannot defend?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Sep 7, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


because regardless of what I post you will never accept it......thus in your mind (and there alone) it is undefended.....


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Why would I accept claims you cannot defend? That in my mind would suggest that you don't have facts on a subject you're simply ignorant about.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Sep 7, 2014)

I will give you this, Hollie.....I've been arguing with atheists for about ten years on boards like this......I have never before seen an atheist so totally owned in an argument who still had the nerve to continue posting......and its not just me.....pretty much everyone has owned you so far.....


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> I will give you this, Hollie.....I've been arguing with atheists for about ten years on boards like this......I have never before seen an atheist so totally owned in an argument who still had the nerve to continue posting......and its not just me.....pretty much everyone has owned you so far.....


I understand you're angry which is why you're lashing out.

I've called out your falsehoods and you can only respond with pith and vinegar. As your latest false comment claims I've been "owned", where and by who? You won't answer because that would leave you with having to support your claim or admit you don't know what you're talking about. As usual, you're left to lash out like a scolded child and you have no ability to substantiate your false claims.

As your latest post demonstrates, you can't debate a topic as your limited knowledge leaves you at a permanent disadvantage. So, you're left to personal attacks and whine about those horrible disbelievers who don't accept your slogans and cliches.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Sep 7, 2014)

just had someone raise a point in a similar argument on another board....

can a supporter of evolution explain the development of the monarch butterfly which migrates from South America to North America in order to lay its eggs?......how does evolution explain that?......


Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > I will give you this, Hollie.....I've been arguing with atheists for about ten years on boards like this......I have never before seen an atheist so totally owned in an argument who still had the nerve to continue posting......and its not just me.....pretty much everyone has owned you so far.....
> ...


????.....here.......everybody......


----------



## idb (Sep 7, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> just had someone raise a point in a similar argument on another board....
> 
> can a supporter of evolution explain the development of the monarch butterfly which migrates from South America to North America in order to lay its eggs?......how does evolution explain that?......
> 
> ...


Is it being studied?
"Evolution" is not about unthinkingly giving the same answer for everything like...oh, I don't know..."God did it".


----------



## konradv (Sep 7, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> just had someone raise a point in a similar argument on another board....
> 
> can a supporter of evolution explain the development of the monarch butterfly which migrates from South America to North America in order to lay its eggs?......how does evolution explain that?.......



Why should evolution necessarily explain it at all?  There can be all sorts of factors, some of which may have nothing to do with evolution, like climate change or the availability of food.


----------



## idb (Sep 7, 2014)

I'm still unsure what the definition of a 'true religion' is.


----------



## konradv (Sep 8, 2014)

idb said:


> I'm still unsure what the definition of a 'true religion' is.



Probably a lot like 'pornography'.  I can't define it, but I know when I look at Scientology that it isn't one.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Sep 8, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> You can't answer the questions can you?



I'll answer it - yes, I lie all the time.

"Honey, that was great!"

"No, you DON'T look fat."

Etc. 

So, you DON'T lie? Never???

How flipping rude!

There you go - lying is part of everyone's social repertoire, or should be.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 8, 2014)

idb said:


> Is it being studied?
> "Evolution" is not about unthinkingly giving the same answer for everything like...oh, I don't know..."God did it".



Or I don't know "evolution did it".


----------



## idb (Sep 8, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Is it being studied?
> ...


No-one says that.
That's the point.

Evolutionary theory doesn't rely on simple binary statements like religion.
It's a study of processes.

Your butterfly example could, for example, be a result of climate change.
Maybe the butterflies used to breed in a place that was very near their main source of food but, as climate has changed over the years the food source has moved and they've moved with it but kept returning to the same place to breed.
The distance has increased slowly over the years and they've just continued to fly the extra few metres each time.
Maybe.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 8, 2014)

konradv said:


> Why should evolution necessarily explain it at all?  There can be all sorts of factors, some of which may have nothing to do with evolution, like climate change or the availability of food.



But there weren't humans around millions of years ago to cause climate change.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 8, 2014)

idb said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



What do you mean no one says that? You just did.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 8, 2014)

Hollie said:


> I understand you're angry which is why you're lashing out.
> 
> I've called out your falsehoods and you can only respond with pith and vinegar. As your latest false comment claims I've been "owned", where and by who? You won't answer because that would leave you with having to support your claim or admit you don't know what you're talking about. As usual, you're left to lash out like a scolded child and you have no ability to substantiate your false claims.
> 
> As your latest post demonstrates, you can't debate a topic as your limited knowledge leaves you at a permanent disadvantage. *So, you're left to personal attacks and whine about those horrible disbelievers who don't accept your slogans and cliches*.



Oh the irony!


----------



## konradv (Sep 8, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Why should evolution necessarily explain it at all?  There can be all sorts of factors, some of which may have nothing to do with evolution, like climate change or the availability of food.
> ...


Their ancestors were.  Other than that the comment is irrelevant and just an attempt to distract from an argument that you're losing.


----------



## konradv (Sep 8, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



No he didn't.  He said maybe evolution, maybe climate change, maybe food availability.


----------



## idb (Sep 8, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


Please quote the part where I said "evolution did that".

Are you referring to my possible scenario as an alternative to "God did it" perhaps?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 8, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> I'll answer it - yes, I lie all the time.
> 
> "Honey, that was great!"
> 
> ...



I wasn't asking you that question. But thanks for being honest. I don't know a person in the world that hasn't lied. That is my point. Hollie was making the point that she is a "good" person which can only hold true if she is the god of her own universe and determines what is "good" and what is "bad".

Evolutionists don't believe in moral absolutes and therefore believe lying is okay which is why it is impossible to have an honest debate with them.

Once again as I asked before...



Hollie said:


> There is a brightness across the land called literacy and education and knowledge, and exploration and science, each demonstrable, each progressing the human condition, each giving us hope for a better tomorrow.



What is better? Who thinks it is better? Who determines if it is better? Better than what? How do you know it is better?

Please explain your enlightened logic.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 8, 2014)

konradv said:


> Their ancestors were.



And they drove cars that caused big carbon footprints?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 8, 2014)

idb said:


> Please quote the part where I said "evolution did that".
> 
> Are you referring to my possible scenario as an alternative to "God did it" perhaps?



I am referring to your explanation of the butterfly question in which you invoke evolution as the reason. No, you didn't specifically say the words "evolution did that" but neither do Creationists many times say the exact words "God did it." The point is evolutionist believe that everything is a result of evolution while creationists believe that everything was created by God with a purpose and was skillfully designed so that it could change and adapt (micro-evolution) to its surroundings. 

However, I have heard people say the exact words "evolution did it."

Please note, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your explanation of the butterfly since it is seems to be one of micro evolution. I haven't studied that particular example much myself to be able to opine.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 8, 2014)

konradv said:


> No he didn't.  He said maybe evolution, maybe climate change, maybe food availability.



All of which are examples of saying "evolution did it", in principle. If the climate changes, something will adapt (micro-evolution). If the food availability changes it will have to adapt (micro-evolution). Therefore all three cases offer evolution as the explanation.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 8, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Already did.



Could you help me find it?


----------



## idb (Sep 8, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Why should evolution necessarily explain it at all?  There can be all sorts of factors, some of which may have nothing to do with evolution, like climate change or the availability of food.
> ...


No, you're right!


THE LIGHT said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Please quote the part where I said "evolution did that".
> ...


I didn't put it forward as an explanation, or even a theory.
It's a possible scenario.
I wouldn't even call it 'evolution' because it's more of a behavioural development than a physical one.


----------



## idb (Sep 8, 2014)

THE LIGHT said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > No he didn't.  He said maybe evolution, maybe climate change, maybe food availability.
> ...


No, they aren't necessarily examples of 'evolution did it'.
As I've just posted, they could be merely behavioural changes to meet changing environments.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Sep 8, 2014)

idb said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



I see your point.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Sep 9, 2014)

idb said:


> , as climate has changed over the years the food source has moved and they've moved with it but kept returning to the same place to breed.


you realize that they cross the equator, right?.....one temperate zone in SA to another temperate zone in NA.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Sep 9, 2014)

idb said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


behavioral changes which become an hereditary trait ARE evolution.......


----------



## BillyP (Sep 9, 2014)

Wow! you guys are still at it. 

This thread hasn't evolved much. 

But it doesn't mean that evolution isn't right now the accepted theory until proven otherwise.


----------

