# Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution



## abu afak

Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.

*HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION*
Smithsonian Magazine -- 4-19-2018

*""Rick Potts is no atheist-evolutionist-Darwinist.* That often comes as a surprise to the faith communities he works with as head of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Human Origins Program in Washington, D.C.

Raised Protestant — with, he likes to say, “an emphasis on the ‘protest’” — the paleoanthropologist spends his weekends singing in a choir that sings both sacred and secular songs. At 18, he became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War...
[....]That’s why, for him, human evolution is the perfect topic to break down entrenched barriers between people in an increasingly polarized, politicized world.
[.....]
If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: *Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.*

What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, *among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?*
[.....]
[.....]









						How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution
					

For two years, researchers from the Smithsonian traveled the country explaining the science of our shared origins




					www.smithsonianmag.com


----------



## AFrench2

Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.


----------



## fncceo

abu afak said:


> HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION



How about you just don't?

The facts of science don't change if someone doesn't believe in them.

There really is no point in trying to educate the mind of someone who isn't seeking to learn the truth.


----------



## abu afak

AFrench2 said:


> Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.


Yes, that is Exactly what the article says.

.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

‘Dan Kahan, a science communication expert at Yale Law School, thinks that's possible, but only if we abandon some tired rhetorical terrain. Asking people whether or not they “believe” in evolution is the wrong question, Kahan's work suggests, because it forces them to decide between what they know and who they are.’ _ibid_

True.

And of course evolution isn’t a ‘belief’ – it’s a fact; religion is a belief.


----------



## cnm

abu afak said:


> What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, *among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?*


I imagine he'd think Americans are exceptional...


----------



## fncceo

cnm said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, *among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?*
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine he'd think Americans are exceptional...
Click to expand...


I think he'd be right. 

In all of human history, America and, by extension, Americans, are exceptional. The first colonized country to break from the powerful British Empire.  A country who freely excepted immigrants from all over the world and asked of them only one thing, to work hard, and be a part of the creation of a great nation.

America was founded not, as other nation states, by a violent king looking to carve out a kingdom, but by wise men with a vision of an enlightened country, the most free in all the world.

Of course, any country who starts with such high expectations is bound to falter along the way.  It took us a century to eradicate slavery, another century still to establish civil rights for all Americans.  But, all the while, even when we faltered, we didn't abandon our ideals.

We started out as a third-rate agricultural-based experiment in Democracy and created the most prosperous nation state in history.

All-in-all, a very exceptional achievement.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution! 

Science = settled!

Can I get an Amen?

We have Concensus!


----------



## cnm

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And of course evolution isn’t a ‘belief’ – it’s a fact; religion is a belief.


Perhaps a belief with evidence as compared to a belief without evidence. Evidence in this case being that which can be shown.


----------



## cnm

fncceo said:


> America was founded not, as other nation states, by a violent king looking to carve out a kingdom, but by wise men with a vision of an enlightened country, the most free in all the world.


It was founded by venal scoundrels wishing to break treaties with the Indians in order to obtain the Indians' lands and to avoid paying for the wars that had protected them against the French and the Indians while basing an economy on unpaid labour. Quite normal, really.


----------



## fncceo

CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!



Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still t,oday, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth.  But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.

We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature. 

We also know that organic molecule that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.

Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.

A third explanation might very well be currently beyond our understanding.

Evolution doesn't explain everything.  Just as the 'laws' of gravity don't tell us anything about how gravity actually works.  But, we can demonstrate gravity and we understand its effects, if not its workings, very well.

Evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life on Earth that fits the existing observations and evidence.


----------



## cnm

fncceo said:


> Evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life on Earth that fits the existing observations and evidence.


For the speciation of life on earth, agreed.


----------



## Thoth001

I tend to subscribe the the Ancient Astronaut theory for humans. Either way they are all just theories and no one really knows for sure what exactly happened in the past. No doubt though that many things evolve over time. A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their are no Neanderthals left?


----------



## fncceo

Thoth001 said:


> A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their [sic] are no Neanderthals left?



If a river splits in two ... the branches go off in different directions, one doesn't just cease to be.  The same is true of offspring.  When a mutation occurs, creating a new line, it doesn't affect the existing, non-mutated lines.

As for the Neanderthals, fossil evidence shows that modern humans not only co-existed with them, but mated with them.  Neanderthal DNA accounts for up to 20% of the genome of non-African humans.

The most plausible answer to where they went is, we killed them off.


----------



## cnm

Thoth001 said:


> Either way they are all just theories


No they're not all just theories. Some are 'scientific theories' backed by evidence and some are delusional maunderings plucked from people's arses, eg the astronaut 'theory'.


----------



## Thoth001

cnm said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either way they are all just theories
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not all just theories. Some are 'scientific theories' backed by evidence and some are delusional maunderings plucked from people's arses, eg the astronaut 'theory'.
Click to expand...


Some so called evidence is also fraudulent. You really can't believe anything. Feel free to believe what you want though. There are many entities invested into the history that they tell us. I will do my own research and come to my own conclusions. I really don't need anyone to tell me what to think.


----------



## Thoth001

fncceo said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their [sic] are no Neanderthals left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a river splits in two ... the branches go off in different directions, one doesn't just cease to be.  The same is true of offspring.  When a mutation occurs, creating a new line, it doesn't affect the existing, non-mutated lines.
> 
> As for the Neanderthals, fossil evidence shows that modern humans not only co-existed with them, but mated with them.  Neanderthal DNA accounts for up to 20% of the genome of non-African humans.
> 
> The most plausible answer to where they went is, we killed them off.
Click to expand...


Do you believe we literally evolved from Apes?


----------



## fncceo

Thoth001 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their [sic] are no Neanderthals left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a river splits in two ... the branches go off in different directions, one doesn't just cease to be.  The same is true of offspring.  When a mutation occurs, creating a new line, it doesn't affect the existing, non-mutated lines.
> 
> As for the Neanderthals, fossil evidence shows that modern humans not only co-existed with them, but mated with them.  Neanderthal DNA accounts for up to 20% of the genome of non-African humans.
> 
> The most plausible answer to where they went is, we killed them off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe we literally evolved from Apes?
Click to expand...


No, and neither does anyone else who understands Evolution.

Apes and Men both descended from another, much earlier, common mammalian ancestor.

A genetic mutation created two separated genealogical lines, one led to humans, the other led to apes.


----------



## cnm

Thoth001 said:


> You really can't believe anything.


Yet you manage to believe the 'Astronaut Theory' without any difficulty at all, let alone evidence, when there is much more evidence for evolution of species. Oh well, colour me surprised. And you exceptional.


----------



## surada

Thoth001 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their [sic] are no Neanderthals left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a river splits in two ... the branches go off in different directions, one doesn't just cease to be.  The same is true of offspring.  When a mutation occurs, creating a new line, it doesn't affect the existing, non-mutated lines.
> 
> As for the Neanderthals, fossil evidence shows that modern humans not only co-existed with them, but mated with them.  Neanderthal DNA accounts for up to 20% of the genome of non-African humans.
> 
> The most plausible answer to where they went is, we killed them off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe we literally evolved from Apes?
Click to expand...


Nope.. That's a simplification for uneducated people.


----------



## abu afak

cnm said:


> Yet you manage to believe the 'Astronaut Theory' without any difficulty at all, let alone evidence, when there is much more evidence for evolution of species. Oh well, colour me surprised. And you exceptional.


And the problem/IDIOCY with the 'Astronaut Theory' is it solves NOTHING.
It just kicks the 'life' problem down the Universe!
The non-solution of a low IQer.

`


----------



## Thoth001

fncceo said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their [sic] are no Neanderthals left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a river splits in two ... the branches go off in different directions, one doesn't just cease to be.  The same is true of offspring.  When a mutation occurs, creating a new line, it doesn't affect the existing, non-mutated lines.
> 
> As for the Neanderthals, fossil evidence shows that modern humans not only co-existed with them, but mated with them.  Neanderthal DNA accounts for up to 20% of the genome of non-African humans.
> 
> The most plausible answer to where they went is, we killed them off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe we literally evolved from Apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, and neither does anyone else who understands Evolution.
> 
> Apes and Men both descended from another, much earlier, common mammalian ancestor.
> 
> A genetic mutation created two separated genealogical lines, one led to humans, the other led to apes.
Click to expand...


That makes some sense.


----------



## Thoth001

abu afak said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you manage to believe the 'Astronaut Theory' without any difficulty at all, let alone evidence, when there is much more evidence for evolution of species. Oh well, colour me surprised. And you exceptional.
> 
> 
> 
> And the problem/IDIOCY with the 'Astronaut Theory' is it solves NOTHING.
> It just kicks the 'life' problem down the Universe!
> The non-solution of a low IQer.
> 
> `
Click to expand...


Don't you believe Aliens exist and can go to other planets? Do you think humans can be the only intelligent species in the whole universe? And even Quantum Physics is finding that their may be more then one Universe and 12 other dimensions. Entities can even travel interdimensionally to come here also. I think we should question everything and not get stuck into one way of thinking.


----------



## Thoth001

surada said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their [sic] are no Neanderthals left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a river splits in two ... the branches go off in different directions, one doesn't just cease to be.  The same is true of offspring.  When a mutation occurs, creating a new line, it doesn't affect the existing, non-mutated lines.
> 
> As for the Neanderthals, fossil evidence shows that modern humans not only co-existed with them, but mated with them.  Neanderthal DNA accounts for up to 20% of the genome of non-African humans.
> 
> The most plausible answer to where they went is, we killed them off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe we literally evolved from Apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.. That's a simplification for uneducated people.
Click to expand...


Actually that is what they taught us in 6th grade. But you would be correct to say the US education system is not very good at all.


----------



## Thoth001

cnm said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't believe anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you manage to believe the 'Astronaut Theory' without any difficulty at all, let alone evidence, when there is much more evidence for evolution of species. Oh well, colour me surprised. And you exceptional.
Click to expand...


I said I tend to subscribe to it, I didn't say I totally believe it. Maybe you should try reading what I said. I always have room to look at all the options of how we humans on this Earth came about. Not to mention no matter what you believe, they are all still theories.


----------



## cnm

Thoth001 said:


> I said I tend to subscribe to it


With no evidence whatsoever, while ignoring the evidence for evolution.


----------



## Thoth001

cnm said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said I tend to subscribe to it
> 
> 
> 
> With no evidence whatsoever, while ignoring the evidence for evolution.
Click to expand...


You chose only to look at one spectrum of evidence while disregarding a whole plethora of other evidence. That's not scientific at all. It is not my fault you are simple minded and one tracked mind that can't see outside the box of perception and look at evidence for other theories.


----------



## cnm

Thoth001 said:


> Not to mention no matter what you believe, they are all still theories.


No, the Astronaut Theory is not a scientific theory. Evolution is a scientific theory. That you believe they're of equal weight validates Asimov's assertion.

_There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Isaac Asimov. _​_Isaac Asimov Quotes About Ignorance | A-Z Quotes_​


----------



## cnm

Thoth001 said:


> You chose only to look at one spectrum of evidence while disregarding a whole plethora of other evidence. That's not scientific at all. It is not my fault you are simple minded and one tracked mind that can't see outside the box of perception and look at evidence for other theories.


Gods but you are full of self justifying bullshit. Oh well, if fooling yourself makes you happy I guess the ends justify the means. I suppose.


----------



## Thoth001

cnm said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention no matter what you believe, they are all still theories.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Astronaut Theory is not a scientific theory. Evolution is a scientific theory. That you believe they're of equal weight validates Asimov's assertion.
> 
> _There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Isaac Asimov. _​_Isaac Asimov Quotes About Ignorance | A-Z Quotes_​
Click to expand...


Science is science and theories are theories. It don't make it not scientific if you only see one side or believe in one side. That is not science at all. That is called being stuck in a box that you can't get out of. Science is about experimentation and learning new things not continue to keep yourself locked up in one thought process.


----------



## Thoth001

cnm said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You chose only to look at one spectrum of evidence while disregarding a whole plethora of other evidence. That's not scientific at all. It is not my fault you are simple minded and one tracked mind that can't see outside the box of perception and look at evidence for other theories.
> 
> 
> 
> Gods but you are full of self justifying bullshit. Oh well, if fooling yourself makes you happy I guess the ends justify the means. I suppose.
Click to expand...


You don't make any sense.


----------



## fncceo

Thoth001 said:


> Actually that is what they taught us in 6th grade. But you would be correct to say the US education system is not very good at all.


----------



## fncceo

Thoth001 said:


> Science is science and theories are theories.



Actually, science is made up of theories.  A theory is the best explanation for a phenomenon that fits the evidence and can be substantiated by experiment or observation.

The best example of that is Gravity.  We commonly say there are 'Laws of Gravity'.  But, that isn't precisely true.  We know from observation and experiment the effects of gravity and with that knowledge, we can make very accurate predictions of those effect over vast times and distances.  But, HOW gravity works is purely theoretical and we don't understand it well.  So, in essence, gravity is just a theory -- a not well substantiated theory.

Because science is not dogmatic (like religion) when new evidence comes along that negates an existing theory, we discard that theory in favor of a better one that fits the evidence.


----------



## fncceo

Thoth001 said:


> You chose only to look at one spectrum of evidence while disregarding a whole plethora of other evidence. That's not scientific at all. It is not my fault you are simple minded and one tracked mind that can't see outside the box of perception and look at evidence for other theories.



People who don't believe that a race of alien astronauts seeded The Earth with life and built all the monuments of the ancient world aren't ignoring any evidence... they are looking at that evidence and coming up with a MUCH MORE logical explanation for that evidence.

That is called 'Occum's Razor'.  The precept being, the most simple explanation that explains the data is typically the correct one.

For example, one explanation for the pyramids might be that an ancient race of aliens decided to come to Earth, build a huge monument using only native materials and leaving absolutely no trace that they were there, including no mention in the historical records of the time -- OR -- that some super-rich, narcissistic HUMAN king, with a vast supply of tax revenue and an inexhaustible slave labor supply decided to build a giant monument to himself using technology that we KNOW was available at the time.

Which would you think is the simplest, and most logical of those two explanations for the origin of the pyramids?


----------



## Thoth001

fncceo said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You chose only to look at one spectrum of evidence while disregarding a whole plethora of other evidence. That's not scientific at all. It is not my fault you are simple minded and one tracked mind that can't see outside the box of perception and look at evidence for other theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who don't believe that a race of alien astronauts seeded The Earth with life and built all the monuments of the ancient world aren't ignoring any evidence... they are looking at that evidence and coming up with a MUCH MORE logical explanation for that evidence.
> 
> That is called 'Occum's Razor'.  The precept being, the most simple explanation that explains the data is typically the correct one.
> 
> For example, one explanation for the pyramids might be that an ancient race of aliens decided to come to Earth, build a huge monument using only native materials and leaving absolutely no trace that they were there, including no mention in the historical records of the time -- OR -- that some super-rich, narcissistic HUMAN king, with a vast supply of tax revenue and an inexhaustible slave labor supply decided to build a giant monument to himself using technology that we KNOW was available at the time.
> 
> Which would you think is the simplest, and most logical of those two explanations for the origin of the pyramids?
Click to expand...


That is not exactly what Ancient Astronaut theorist talk about with aliens seeding the Earth. It is more that they used the DNA of the Neanderthal and combined with themselves such as the Annunaki to explain the giant leap from Neanderthal to Humans in such a short amount of time . Many indigenous tribes talk about that kind of thing and the Sumerian Tablets and older ancient texts hint at that. It is all very interesting once you start reading books on it and finding more and more information. Most main stream scientists won't look at any of this.

Thoth did say he built the pyramids.


----------



## fncceo

Thoth001 said:


> It is more that they used the DNA of the Neanderthal and combined with themselves such as the Annunaki



One of the problems with staple sci-fi movies is that aliens in them tend to be humanoid, looking nearly exactly humans.  Mainly this is done because of the incredible expense of making a movie alien look convincingly alien.  The strangest creatures that exist on Earth are at least from the same common gene pool as every other living thing on Earth.  Imagine how much different an alien would be, one that came from a completely different evolutionary tree.

Take a look at the VAST diversity of life on Earth which came from a single, common gene pool.  And yet, a fish can't mate with a mammal, despite what Mr. Garrison teaches above.

Now, try to imagine the DNA of an alien being, one completely outside of the Earth's gene pool.  A pool which started 4 BILLION years BEFORE the Neanderthal.

How compatible would an alien DNA (assuming they have anything like DNA) be to the DNA of any creature on Earth, especially a hominid like The Neanderthal.

Now, take a look at modern human DNA, there is absolutely nothing in it that suggest our DNA is alien to that of any other animal, plant, bacteria, or virus that has ever existed on Earth.

No, I would say whatever 'evidence' exists regarding the creation of humans by meddling aliens, there is a much more prosaic, more simple, and more logical explanation closer to home.


----------



## badbob85037

abu afak said:


> Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
> Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.
> 
> *HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION*
> Smithsonian Magazine -- 4-19-2018
> 
> *""Rick Potts is no atheist-evolutionist-Darwinist.* That often comes as a surprise to the faith communities he works with as head of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Human Origins Program in Washington, D.C.
> 
> Raised Protestant — with, he likes to say, “an emphasis on the ‘protest’” — the paleoanthropologist spends his weekends singing in a choir that sings both sacred and secular songs. At 18, he became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War...
> [....]That’s why, for him, human evolution is the perfect topic to break down entrenched barriers between people in an increasingly polarized, politicized world.
> [.....]
> If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: *Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.*
> 
> What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, *among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?*
> [.....]
> [.....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution
> 
> 
> For two years, researchers from the Smithsonian traveled the country explaining the science of our shared origins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com


If someone believes his grandpa use to set a top a tree throwing his shit on the other apes below who am I to tell the democrat any different?


----------



## abu afak

Thoth001 said:


> Don't you believe Aliens exist and can go to other planets? Do you think humans can be the only intelligent species in the whole universe? And even Quantum Physics is finding that their may be more then one Universe and 12 other dimensions. Entities can even travel interdimensionally to come here also. I think we should question everything and not get stuck into one way of thinking.


I'll try again you IDIOT.
The problem between creationists and non-creationists (Evo does not incl abiogenesis except as tangent) is how life was created IN THE FIRST PLACE.... ANYWHERE.
Suggesting life here was planted by someone else does NOT solve the problem (human or alien) of How/Who created life in the FIRST Place, god or abiogenesis.
You are too stupid to understand what you are suggesting does NOT solve that quandary.
Got it now retard?

`


----------



## Thoth001

fncceo said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is more that they used the DNA of the Neanderthal and combined with themselves such as the Annunaki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the problems with staple sci-fi movies is that aliens in them tend to be humanoid, looking nearly exactly humans.  Mainly this is done because of the incredible expense of making a movie alien look convincingly alien.  The strangest creatures that exist on Earth are at least from the same common gene pool as every other living thing on Earth.  Imagine how much different an alien would be, one that came from a completely different evolutionary tree.
> 
> Take a look at the VAST diversity of life on Earth which came from a single, common gene pool.  And yet, a fish can't mate with a mammal, despite what Mr. Garrison teaches above.
> 
> Now, try to imagine the DNA of an alien being, one completely outside of the Earth's gene pool.  A pool which started 4 BILLION years BEFORE the Neanderthal.
> 
> How compatible would an alien DNA (assuming they have anything like DNA) be to the DNA of any creature on Earth, especially a hominid like The Neanderthal.
> 
> Now, take a look at modern human DNA, there is absolutely nothing in it that suggest our DNA is alien to that of any other animal, plant, bacteria, or virus that has ever existed on Earth.
> 
> No, I would say whatever 'evidence' exists regarding the creation of humans by meddling aliens, there is a much more prosaic, more simple, and more logical explanation closer to home.
Click to expand...


I look at it this way. As an example look what we did with dogs. There was not this many different breeds of dogs until we started manipulating them and making all kind of different breeds. As above so below.

In this age even we as humans are able to manipulate DNA and even create clones. Just imagine what beings can do that are millions of year more advanced then us. I think to begin to find what really happened in the past, we all need to step outside the box we were placed in. There is reasons why our "masters" won't tell us what really happened in the past. They don't even tell us the truth in what is really goin on now. Which is why we must all do our research if we even want to come close to finding the truth. That is just how I look at it. I know many like to believe in mainstream narratives. For me it most of the time the mainstream narratives are lies and or misrepresentations of the truth.

I am always open to new and expanded possibilities and alternative explanations of how the human became the human on this Earth.


----------



## Thoth001

abu afak said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you believe Aliens exist and can go to other planets? Do you think humans can be the only intelligent species in the whole universe? And even Quantum Physics is finding that their may be more then one Universe and 12 other dimensions. Entities can even travel interdimensionally to come here also. I think we should question everything and not get stuck into one way of thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try again you IDIOT.
> The problem between creationists and non-creationists (Evo does not incl abiogenesis except as tangent) is how life was created IN THE FIRST PLACE.... ANYWHERE.
> Suggesting life here was planted by someone else does NOT solve the problem (human or alien) of How/Who created life in the FIRST Place, god or abiogenesis.
> You are too stupid to understand what you are suggesting does NOT solve that quandary.
> Got it now retard?
> 
> `
Click to expand...


I am not going to have a logical conversation with you if you can't even have a logical conversation in return. Have you gone around being a bully to people your whole life? Have your parents never told you that it is not nice to call people retards and stupid? That just shows the true nature of yourself.

And where did I say I was a creationist? A creationist is someone who believes a God created everything. I don't think that.


----------



## fncceo

Thoth001 said:


> As an example look what we did with dogs.



Every single dog on this planet is descended from a common wolf ancestor. We did this with thousands of years of selective cross breeding.

Creating a single being from cross-breeding a two completely different gene pools from two completely different planets is not remotely comparable.

There is nothing wrong with coming up with "alternative" theories to unanswered scientific questions.  But, those alternative theories must be compatible with what we already know and have observed.

The DNA of two different Earth species are incompatible for reproduction ... that would be far more the case for DNA of two completely different planets.


----------



## fncceo

Thoth001 said:


> There is reasons why our "masters" won't tell us what really happened in the past.



Who are our master?  And what secret information do you believe they possess?


----------



## Thoth001

fncceo said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As an example look what we did with dogs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every single dog on this planet is descended from a common wolf ancestor. We did this with thousands of years of selective cross breeding.
> 
> Creating a single being from cross-breeding a two completely different gene pools from two completely different planets is not remotely comparable.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with coming up with "alternative" theories to unanswered scientific questions.  But, those alternative theories must be compatible with what we already know and have observed.
> 
> The DNA of two different Earth species are incompatible for reproduction ... that would be far more the case for DNA of two completely different planets.
Click to expand...


DNA is DNA no matter what part of the Universe you are in. Not to mention there have been a few scientist that believe  this Universe is a hologram.









						DECLASSIFIED: CIA Explains Consciousness, The Matrix, Meditation, Holograms, Telepathy - In5D
					

The CIA declassified a number of documents that relate to spirituality and consciousness, amongst a number of other fascinating topics!




					in5d.com
				









						ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT OF GATEWAY PROCESS | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)
					






					www.cia.gov
				






			http://impiousdigest.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5-1.pdf


----------



## cnm

Thoth001 said:


> Science is science and theories are theories. It don't make it not scientific if you only see one side or believe in one side. That is not science at all. That is called being stuck in a box that you can't get out of. Science is about experimentation and learning new things not continue to keep yourself locked up in one thought process.


I've spent a few years in laboratories. You?


----------



## Thoth001

fncceo said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is reasons why our "masters" won't tell us what really happened in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are our master?  And what secret information do you believe they possess?
Click to expand...


Getting a little bit from the subject but this goes into great detail:









						What is the Cabal? The World Ruling Secret Societies | Gaia
					

The Cabal rules the masses within the shadows with hidden agendas. Discover what is the Cabal, Cabal secrets, and how to shine a light on their dark forces.




					www.gaia.com
				




If you keep the masses docile and ignorant, it is far easier to control them


----------



## Thoth001

cnm said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is science and theories are theories. It don't make it not scientific if you only see one side or believe in one side. That is not science at all. That is called being stuck in a box that you can't get out of. Science is about experimentation and learning new things not continue to keep yourself locked up in one thought process.
> 
> 
> 
> I've spent a few years in laboratories. You?
Click to expand...


You making Meth in a lab don't count. I don't need to work in a laboratory to find information.


----------



## fncceo

Thoth001 said:


> DNA is DNA no matter what part of the Universe you are in.



How species on other planets evolve and how their reproductive transmission occurs is purely speculative.  We have no data or observations on which to create a theory.


----------



## cnm

Thoth001 said:


> I am always open to new and expanded possibilities and alternative explanations of how the human became the human on this Earth.


Ffs.


----------



## Thoth001

fncceo said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is DNA no matter what part of the Universe you are in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How species on other planets evolve and how their reproductive transmission occurs is purely speculative.  We have no data or observations on which to create a theory.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree that there is evolution. That can be plainly seen in nature. The problem I have is such a giant leap in such a short amount of time.


----------



## Thoth001

cnm said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always open to new and expanded possibilities and alternative explanations of how the human became the human on this Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> Ffs.
Click to expand...


Were you in the military, since you like to use Acronyms?


----------



## cnm

fncceo said:


> Who are our master? And what secret information do you believe they possess?


Shhhhhhhh. It's a secret...


----------



## cnm

Thoth001 said:


> You making Meth in a lab don't count. I don't need to work in a laboratory to find information.


True, you just pull it from your arse. An enviable gift.


----------



## cnm

Thoth001 said:


> The problem I have is such a giant leap in such a short amount of time.


The time was geological in span. That means it was a very long time.


----------



## Thoth001

cnm said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are our master? And what secret information do you believe they possess?
> 
> 
> 
> Shhhhhhhh. It's a secret...
Click to expand...


Its isn't really a secret anymore and even JFK told the people in the 60's.


----------



## fncceo

Thoth001 said:


> The problem I have is such a giant leap in such a short amount of time.



4.5 Billion years isn't that short of a time.


----------



## cnm

Thoth001 said:


> There is reasons why our "masters" won't tell us what really happened in the past.



Care to explain everything in this post?


----------



## Thoth001

cnm said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I have is such a giant leap in such a short amount of time.
> 
> 
> 
> The time was geological in span. That means it was a very long time.
Click to expand...


You are allowed to believe whatever you want.


----------



## cnm

Thoth001 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are our master? And what secret information do you believe they possess?
> 
> 
> 
> Shhhhhhhh. It's a secret...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its isn't really a secret anymore and even JFK told the people in the 60's.
Click to expand...

Well, fess up then.


----------



## harmonica

AFrench2 said:


> Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.


......he doesn't need to prove god doesn't exist....the theists need to prove he does


----------



## cnm

It's no use. I'll never learn how to talk about evolution. Oh well.


----------



## Thoth001

fncceo said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I have is such a giant leap in such a short amount of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.5 Billion years isn't that short of a time.
Click to expand...


Have they not found human bones that old or atleast close to humans? That is definitely another avenue to explore. Could it be that the humans were here even before the Neanderthals and the Apes? How do we know in earlier times that we or these other beings didn't create the Neanderthal or Apes from us?


----------



## harmonica

Thoth001 said:


> I tend to subscribe the the Ancient Astronaut theory for humans. Either way they are all just theories and no one really knows for sure what exactly happened in the past. No doubt though that many things evolve over time. A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their are no Neanderthals left?


..the theory is we did not evolve from apes.......


----------



## Thoth001

cnm said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is reasons why our "masters" won't tell us what really happened in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain everything in this post?
Click to expand...


If you are kept ignorant you are easier to control and manipulate?


----------



## Thoth001

harmonica said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to subscribe the the Ancient Astronaut theory for humans. Either way they are all just theories and no one really knows for sure what exactly happened in the past. No doubt though that many things evolve over time. A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their are no Neanderthals left?
> 
> 
> 
> ..the theory is we did not evolve from apes.......
Click to expand...


Although some people act a lot like apes.


----------



## harmonica

fncceo said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is science and theories are theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science is made up of theories.  A theory is the best explanation for a phenomenon that fits the evidence and can be substantiated by experiment or observation.
> 
> The best example of that is Gravity.  We commonly say there are 'Laws of Gravity'.  But, that isn't precisely true.  We know from observation and experiment the effects of gravity and with that knowledge, we can make very accurate predictions of those effect over vast times and distances.  But, HOW gravity works is purely theoretical and we don't understand it well.  So, in essence, gravity is just a theory -- a not well substantiated theory.
> 
> Because science is not dogmatic (like religion) when new evidence comes along that negates an existing theory, we discard that theory in favor of a better one that fits the evidence.
Click to expand...

....at least we can see gravity at work...we can't see a theory at work--such as evolution....but creation has no theory


----------



## Thoth001

cnm said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are our master? And what secret information do you believe they possess?
> 
> 
> 
> Shhhhhhhh. It's a secret...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its isn't really a secret anymore and even JFK told the people in the 60's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, fess up then.
Click to expand...


I shared a link so you can start there, or you could listen to what JFK had to say.


----------



## harmonica

Thoth001 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to subscribe the the Ancient Astronaut theory for humans. Either way they are all just theories and no one really knows for sure what exactly happened in the past. No doubt though that many things evolve over time. A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their are no Neanderthals left?
> 
> 
> 
> ..the theory is we did not evolve from apes.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although some people act a lot like apes.
Click to expand...

watch out---you can't speak the truth


----------



## Thoth001

cnm said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You making Meth in a lab don't count. I don't need to work in a laboratory to find information.
> 
> 
> 
> True, you just pull it from your arse. An enviable gift.
Click to expand...


Sure ok Walter White.


----------



## Thoth001

harmonica said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to subscribe the the Ancient Astronaut theory for humans. Either way they are all just theories and no one really knows for sure what exactly happened in the past. No doubt though that many things evolve over time. A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their are no Neanderthals left?
> 
> 
> 
> ..the theory is we did not evolve from apes.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although some people act a lot like apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> watch out---you can't speak the truth
Click to expand...


And now we have the masked apes.They so dumb, they wear a mask that don't even block a virus if the germ theory is even true.


----------



## cnm

Thoth001 said:


> Have they not found human bones that old or atleast close to humans? That is definitely another avenue to explore. Could it be that the humans were here even before the Neanderthals and the Apes? How do we know in earlier times that we or these other beings didn't create the Neanderthal or Apes from us?


Can't somebody make it stop?


----------



## cnm

Thoth001 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You making Meth in a lab don't count. I don't need to work in a laboratory to find information.
> 
> 
> 
> True, you just pull it from your arse. An enviable gift.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure ok Walter White.
Click to expand...

Well Walter's character knew about science. Unlike you, as you prove with every word you type.


----------



## Thoth001

cnm said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have they not found human bones that old or atleast close to humans? That is definitely another avenue to explore. Could it be that the humans were here even before the Neanderthals and the Apes? How do we know in earlier times that we or these other beings didn't create the Neanderthal or Apes from us?
> 
> 
> 
> Can't somebody make it stop?
Click to expand...


Is it hard for you to see other points of view? I know that may be hard for a one tracked mind.


----------



## cnm

Thoth001 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is reasons why our "masters" won't tell us what really happened in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain everything in this post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are kept ignorant you are easier to control and manipulate?
Click to expand...

The part you are missing of 'everything in this post' is the bit your masters won't tell you about what really happened in the past. So what really happened?


----------



## cnm

Thoth001 said:


> Is it hard for you to see other points of view? I know that may be hard for a one tracked mind.


Personally I think the Hobbits came first, then the Orcs.


----------



## Thoth001

cnm said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You making Meth in a lab don't count. I don't need to work in a laboratory to find information.
> 
> 
> 
> True, you just pull it from your arse. An enviable gift.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure ok Walter White.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Walter's character knew about science. Unlike you, as you prove with every word you type.
Click to expand...


There is a difference between science and mainstream science which has become dogmatic and much like a religion. Anybody steps outside their box of beliefs and the head scientific priests attack.


----------



## Thoth001

cnm said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it hard for you to see other points of view? I know that may be hard for a one tracked mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I think the Hobbits came first, then the Orcs.
Click to expand...


Consciousness came first and you are just experiencing being a human at this moment that you are focused on.


----------



## Thoth001

cnm said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is reasons why our "masters" won't tell us what really happened in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain everything in this post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are kept ignorant you are easier to control and manipulate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part you are missing of 'everything in this post' is the bit your masters won't tell you about what really happened in the past. So what really happened?
Click to expand...


That is what we all want to know don't we?


----------



## cnm

Thoth001 said:


> There is a difference between science and mainstream science which has become dogmatic and much like a religion. Anybody steps outside their box of beliefs and the head scientific priests attack.


You are an ignorant loon.


----------



## cnm

See? I'm useless at talking about evolution.


----------



## Thoth001

cnm said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between science and mainstream science which has become dogmatic and much like a religion. Anybody steps outside their box of beliefs and the head scientific priests attack.
> 
> 
> 
> You are an ignorant loon.
Click to expand...


Big words from a high priest.


----------



## Thoth001

cnm said:


> See? I'm useless at talking about evolution.



Do you believe in Transhumanism? Or in natural evolution?


----------



## surada

Thoth001 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> See? I'm useless at talking about evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe in Transhumanism? Or in natural evolution?
Click to expand...


LOLOL

transhumanism
[tranzˈhyo͞omənizm]
NOUN
the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology.


----------



## abu afak

Thoth001 said:


> I am not going to have a logical conversation with you if you can't even have a logical conversation in return. Have you gone around being a bully to people your whole life? Have your parents never told you that it is not nice to call people retards and stupid? That just shows the true nature of yourself.
> 
> And where did I say I was a creationist? A creationist is someone who believes a God created everything. I don't think that.


AGAIN.
The astronaut theory does Not do ANYTHING in the way of enlightening on figuring out how life started from non-life.
It just pushes the problem to another planet.
You are Stupid and you now know it, so say you won't engage in a logical discussion because you already lost it due of my explanation.

`


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

cnm said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course evolution isn’t a ‘belief’ – it’s a fact; religion is a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps a belief with evidence as compared to a belief without evidence. Evidence in this case being that which can be shown.
Click to expand...

Evidence which renders evolution a fact; 2 + 2 = 4 is not a ‘belief,’ neither is evolution.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Thoth001 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their [sic] are no Neanderthals left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a river splits in two ... the branches go off in different directions, one doesn't just cease to be.  The same is true of offspring.  When a mutation occurs, creating a new line, it doesn't affect the existing, non-mutated lines.
> 
> As for the Neanderthals, fossil evidence shows that modern humans not only co-existed with them, but mated with them.  Neanderthal DNA accounts for up to 20% of the genome of non-African humans.
> 
> The most plausible answer to where they went is, we killed them off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe we literally evolved from Apes?
Click to expand...

Of course not, that’s ignorant and ridiculous.

All primates share a common ancestor from whom they evolved.









						primate - Oligocene Epoch
					

Information during the Oligocene is mostly from discoveries in Texas and Egypt, though the earliest platyrrhine fossils were found in South America. The most important Oligocene site is Egypt where evidence of the emerging catarrhines appear; a number of different genera have been described from...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## cnm

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course evolution isn’t a ‘belief’ – it’s a fact; religion is a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps a belief with evidence as compared to a belief without evidence. Evidence in this case being that which can be shown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidence which renders evolution a fact; 2 + 2 = 4 is not a ‘belief,’ neither is evolution.
Click to expand...

Mathematics does proof, science does evidence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!


You need to pay better attention. The fact is that they once didn't exist, then they did. If you want to be an incapable, incurious person and fill that gap with "MAGIC!!" and give up, be our guest. Nobody is stopping you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Thoth001 said:


> You chose only to look at one spectrum of evidence while disregarding a whole plethora of other evidence.


You have not a single shred of such evidence, much less a "plethora".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Thoth001 said:


> The problem I have is such a giant leap in such a short amount of time.


Uh....what? This to that took about 6 million years:


----------



## fncceo




----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Thoth001 said:


> Do you believe we literally evolved from Apes?


Of course we did. And apes evolved from monkeys. Etc. Etc.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

harmonica said:


> ..the theory is we did not evolve from apes.......


Indeed we did. The common ancestor of all apes -- of which humans are a species -- was an ape.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Thoth001 said:


> And now we have the masked apes.They so dumb, they wear a mask that don't even block a virus if the germ theory is even true.


And some of the human apes are so ignorant that, a year into the pandemic, they think we wear masks to block free floating viruses.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

abu afak said:


> Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
> Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.
> 
> *HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION*
> Smithsonian Magazine -- 4-19-2018
> 
> *""Rick Potts is no atheist-evolutionist-Darwinist.* That often comes as a surprise to the faith communities he works with as head of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Human Origins Program in Washington, D.C.
> 
> Raised Protestant — with, he likes to say, “an emphasis on the ‘protest’” — the paleoanthropologist spends his weekends singing in a choir that sings both sacred and secular songs. At 18, he became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War...
> [....]That’s why, for him, human evolution is the perfect topic to break down entrenched barriers between people in an increasingly polarized, politicized world.
> [.....]
> If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: *Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.*
> 
> What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, *among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?*
> [.....]
> [.....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution
> 
> 
> For two years, researchers from the Smithsonian traveled the country explaining the science of our shared origins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com


Here is how to talk to evangelicals about evolution:






No discussion. No taking class time for remedial babying. You fail, re-take the class. Bring your bullshit into a room of science, get laughed out of said room.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> You need to pay better attention. The fact is that they once didn't exist, then they did. If you want to be an incapable, incurious person and fill that gap with "MAGIC!!" and give up, be our guest. Nobody is stopping you.
Click to expand...

I just said that!  Post hoc, ergo propter hoc!

Was the DNA  fully formed in this mythical, random first cell? Did it self replicate or run into another IDENTICAL, totally random second cell?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> Post hoc, ergo propter hoc!


No. I did not say that life was caused by having no life. You are not using that phrase correctly.


CrusaderFrank said:


> Was the DNA fully formed in this mythical, random first cell?


Probably not. Define, "cell". If you mean just a self organizing bit of stuff with a lipid barrier around it, then no, DNA was not necessarily needed for that.

the irony here is that the only people pretending to know how life formed are people like you. Magical thinkers who think they have the answers, but have no answers. Once there was no life, then there was life. Something happened in between. Correct? Now why would you toss magic in here, but not into, say, star formation? Once there was no star, then there was a star. Star formation occurred. Do you think THAT was magical?


----------



## cnm

Crusader Frank thinks unless laboratory experiments can be carried out no 'scientific' knowledge can be obtained. Yet he accepts the existence of black holes. He can never be accused of consistent thinking.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post hoc, ergo propter hoc!
> 
> 
> 
> No. I did not say that life was caused by having no life. You are not using that phrase correctly.
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was the DNA fully formed in this mythical, random first cell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably not. Define, "cell". If you mean just a self organizing bit of stuff with a lipid barrier around it, then no, DNA was not necessarily needed for that.
> 
> the irony here is that the only people pretending to know how life formed are people like you. Magical thinkers who think they have the answers, but have no answers. Once there was no life, then there was life. Something happened in between. Correct? Now why would you toss magic in here, but not into, say, star formation? Once there was no star, then there was a star. Star formation occurred. Do you think THAT was magical?
Click to expand...

"Once there was no life, then there was Life" is where you got it completely wrong.

You'll realize how and why things work, once you understand that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

cnm said:


> Crusader Frank thinks unless laboratory experiments can be carried out no 'scientific' knowledge can be obtained. Yet he accepts the existence of black holes. He can never be accused of consistent thinking.


You're not making sense and we have created black holes in a lab.

Why do you feel it's physically impossible to test temperature differences in an atmosphere whose only variable is either 280 or 400 PPM of CO2?


----------



## cnm

CrusaderFrank said:


> You're not making sense and we have created black holes in a lab.


You'll pull any shit from your arse and wave it proudly in defence of your fragile ego and more fragile arguments.


----------



## Dale Smith

So how do evolutionists explain the giant skeletal remains of beings unearthed that exceed as much as 15 feet tall?


----------



## abu afak

Dale Smith said:


> *So how do evolutionists explain the giant skeletal remains of beings unearthed that exceed as much as 15 feet tall?*


Hey you stupid ConspiracYst Freak!
Any you don't believe?
You need to be institutionalized.

You mean these 15 footers?

*Fact check: Online post showing giant human skeletons is an old hoax*
USA TODAY, Sept 8, 2020








						Fact check: Online post showing giant human skeletons is an old hoax
					

Giant human skeletons were not discovered then destroyed. This legend has been around for years, if not centuries.



					www.usatoday.com
				






*"Skeleton of Giant" Is Internet Photo Hoax*
National Geographic - December 14, 2007








						Find Out How the Giant Skeleton Hoax Started
					

National Geographic has not discovered ancient giant humans, despite rampant reports and pictures. But we have discovered how the hoax started and perhaps why people believe.




					www.nationalgeographic.com
				






Thanks for another chance to show what a JOKE you are.



`


----------



## surada

Dale Smith said:


> So how do evolutionists explain the giant skeletal remains of beings unearthed that exceed as much as 15 feet tall?



Fraudulent claims and photoshopping.


----------



## fncceo

Dale Smith said:


> So how do evolutionists explain the giant skeletal remains of beings unearthed that exceed as much as 15 feet tall?


----------



## Turtlesoup

AFrench2 said:


> Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.


But evolution has been proven not take that long to occur...changes actually occur quit quickly and within a few generations......


----------



## surada

Turtlesoup said:


> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.
> 
> 
> 
> But evolution has been proven not take that long to occur...changes actually occur quit quickly and within a few generations......
Click to expand...


Where did you learn such nonsense?


----------



## Turtlesoup

CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = settled!
> 
> Can I get an Amen?
> 
> We have Concensus!


It comes down to that LIFE is nothing more than a collection of basic elements (see periodic table chart), simple energy, and TIME.........which is there is an ample supply of.  

Add in SEEDING from other planets---and it becomes more of a shock if life didn't start up than that it did.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> Once there was no life, then there was Life" is where you got it completely wrong.


Oh yeah? Explain yourself. Why is it wrong? This is the science section, not the attention-begging troll section. Don't make people ask.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dale Smith said:


> So how do evolutionists explain the giant skeletal remains of beings unearthed that exceed as much as 15 feet tall?


By laughing hysterically at that nonsense. Thanks for asking!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once there was no life, then there was Life" is where you got it completely wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah? Explain yourself. Why is it wrong? This is the science section, not the attention-begging troll section. Don't make people ask.
Click to expand...


You think we're made of materials, when in fact we're made of energy. 

You think Consciousness is a byproduct of chemicals and materials, when in fact we live in a self aware Universe.

You're not alone in that thinking either, in fact the vast majority of people would agree with your POV


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> You think we're made of materials, when in fact we're made of energy.


Then cut off your hand, weigh it, and reattach it. Report back on its "weightlessness". Since you are so sure.




CrusaderFrank said:


> You think Consciousness is a byproduct of chemicals and materials, when in fact we live in a self aware Universe.


Magical nonsense. Yes, your consciousness is completely contained within and a product of the physical system that is your brain. You have not a shred of evidence to the contrary, and your magical declarations hold no weight here. Take that garbage to the religion section.




CrusaderFrank said:


> You're not alone in that thinking either,


Well no shit, that's why we arent still in the stone age. Well, most of us.


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> You think we're made of materials, when in fact we're made of energy.
> 
> You think Consciousness is a byproduct of chemicals and materials, when in fact we live in a self aware Universe.
> 
> You're not alone in that thinking either, in fact the vast majority of people would agree with your POV


Where are demonstrably made up of matter.
One watches those who are indoctrinated with any NUMBER of deities claim Theirs is responsible for giving that matter the activation beyond self-replication we have already found to be common among some non-living molecule chains. (several of my threads on this page).

`


----------



## LuckyDuck

How to talk with Evangelicals about evolution:  Simply look them in the eye, smile, say, "that's nice," pat them gently on the head and walk away, as no matter what you say, they will absolutely, not fall in line with the concept of anything but an invisible, all powerful, all knowing, being (that just happens to....while invisible....look just like us), having created everything in the universe.


----------



## Dale Smith

abu afak said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So how do evolutionists explain the giant skeletal remains of beings unearthed that exceed as much as 15 feet tall?*
> 
> 
> 
> Hey you stupid ConspiracYst Freak!
> Any you don't believe?
> You need to be institutionalized.
> 
> You mean these 15 footers?
> 
> *Fact check: Online post showing giant human skeletons is an old hoax*
> USA TODAY, Sept 8, 2020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact check: Online post showing giant human skeletons is an old hoax
> 
> 
> Giant human skeletons were not discovered then destroyed. This legend has been around for years, if not centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usatoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Skeleton of Giant" Is Internet Photo Hoax*
> National Geographic - December 14, 2007
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find Out How the Giant Skeleton Hoax Started
> 
> 
> National Geographic has not discovered ancient giant humans, despite rampant reports and pictures. But we have discovered how the hoax started and perhaps why people believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationalgeographic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for another chance to show what a JOKE you are.
> 
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...










						Traces of ancient giants found in Kentucky. - Newspapers.com
					

Clipping found in The Cincinnati Enquirer in Cincinnati, Ohio on Nov 24, 1911. Traces of ancient giants found in Kentucky.




					www.newspapers.com
				




Giant Mystery: 18 Strange Skeletons Found in Wisconsin
Nine-foot Skeletons with Huge Heads and Strange Facial Features Shocked Scientists When They Were Uncovered 100 Years Ago
Here’s one for your “Forbidden Archaeology” file.
Scientists are remaining stubbornly silent about a lost race of giants found in burial mounds near Lake Delavan, Wisconsin, in May 1912.
The dig site at Lake Delavan was overseen by Beloit College and it included more than 200 effigy mounds that proved to be classic examples of 8th century Woodland Culture. But the enormous size of the skeletons and elongated skulls found in May 1912 did not fit very neatly into anyone’s concept of a textbook standard.
They were enormous. These were not average human beings.
Strange Skulls
First reported in the 4 May 1912 issue of the New York Times, the 18 skeletons found by the Peterson brothers on Lake Lawn Farm in southwest Wisconsin exhibited several strange and freakish features.
Their heights ranged between seven and nine feet and their skulls “presumably those of men, are much larger than the heads of any race which inhabit America to-day.”
Above the eye sockets, “the head slopes straight back and the nasal bones protrude far above the cheek bones. The jaw bones are long and pointed, bearing a minute resemblance to the head of the monkey. The teeth in the front of the jaw are regular molars.”
Mystery of The Wisconsin Giants
Was this some sort of prank, a hoax played by local farm boys or a demented taxidermist for fun and the attention of the press? The answer is no.
The Lake Delavan find of May 1912 was only one of dozens and dozens of similar finds that were reported in local newspapers from 1851 forward to the present day. It was not even the first set of giant skeletons found in Wisconsin.
On 10 August 1891, the New York Times reported that scientists from the Smithsonian Institution had discovered several large “pyramidal monuments” on Lake Mills, near Madison, Wisconsin. “Madison was in ancient days the centre of a teeming population numbering not less than 200,000,” the Times said. The excavators found an elaborate system of defensive works which they named Fort Aztalan.
“The celebrated mounds of Ohio and Indiana can bear no comparison, either in size, design or the skill displayed in their construction with these gigantic and mysterious monuments of earth — erected we know not by whom, and for what purpose we can only conjecture,” said the Times.
On 20 December 1897, the Times followed up with a report on three large burial mounds that had been discovered in Maple Creek, Wisconsin. One had recently been opened.
“In it was found the skeleton of a man of gigantic size. The bones measured from head to foot over nine feet and were in a fair state of preservation. The skull was as large as a half bushel measure. Some finely tempered rods of copper and other relics were lying near the bones.”
Giant skulls and skeletons of a race of “Goliaths” have been found on a very regular basis throughout the Midwestern states for more than 100 years. Giants have been found in Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky and New York, and their burial sites are similar to the well-known mounds of the Mound Builder people.
The spectrum of Mound builder history spans a period of more than 5,000 years (from 3400 BCE to the 16th CE), a period greater than the history of Ancient Egypt and all of its dynasties.
There is a “prevailing scholarly consensus” that we have an adequate historical understanding of the peoples who lived in North America during this period. However, the long record of anomalous finds like those at Lake Delavan suggests otherwise.
The Great Smithsonian Cover-Up
Has there been a giant cover-up? Why aren’t there public displays of gigantic Native American skeletons at natural history museums?
The skeletons of some Mound Builders are certainly on display. There is a wonderful exhibit, for example, at the Aztalan State Park where one may see the skeleton of a “Princess of Aztalan” in the museum.
But the skeletons placed on display are normal-sized, and according to some sources, the skeletons of giants have been covered up. Specifically, the Smithsonian Institution has been accused of making a deliberate effort to hide the “telling of the bones” and to keep the giant skeletons locked away.
In the words of Vine Deloria, a Native American author and professor of law:
“Modern day archaeology and anthropology have nearly sealed the door on our imaginations, broadly interpreting the North American past as devoid of anything unusual in the way of great cultures characterized by a people of unusual demeanor. The great interloper of ancient burial grounds, the nineteenth century Smithsonian Institution, created a one-way portal, through which uncounted bones have been spirited. This door and the contents of its vault are virtually sealed off to anyone, but government officials. Among these bones may lay answers not even sought by these officials concerning the deep past.”









						Top Ten Giant Discoveries in North America
					

The Iroquois, the Osage, the Tuscaroras, the Hurons, the Omahas, and many other North American Indians all speak of giant men who once lived and roamed in the territories of their forefathers.




					www.ancient-origins.net
				




I only have about another ten thousand credible links of archeological digs that produced the skeletal remains of 10 plus foot tall with double rows of teeth with six fingers and six toes. Indigenous tribes have passed down the history of cannibalistic giants and how they were eventually destroyed. You are such a sucker that believes that mankind evolved from gorillas and that abiotic fluids produced by the earth's crust has caused "Global Warming"....h wait....now it's called "Climate Change".........the joke is on you, dipshit.


----------



## abu afak

Dale Smith said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So how do evolutionists explain the giant skeletal remains of beings unearthed that exceed as much as 15 feet tall?*
> 
> 
> 
> Hey you stupid ConspiracYst Freak!
> Any you don't believe?
> You need to be institutionalized.
> 
> You mean these 15 footers?
> 
> *Fact check: Online post showing giant human skeletons is an old hoax*
> USA TODAY, Sept 8, 2020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact check: Online post showing giant human skeletons is an old hoax
> 
> 
> Giant human skeletons were not discovered then destroyed. This legend has been around for years, if not centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usatoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Skeleton of Giant" Is Internet Photo Hoax*
> National Geographic - December 14, 2007
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find Out How the Giant Skeleton Hoax Started
> 
> 
> National Geographic has not discovered ancient giant humans, despite rampant reports and pictures. But we have discovered how the hoax started and perhaps why people believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationalgeographic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for another chance to show what a JOKE you are.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traces of ancient giants found in Kentucky. - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> Clipping found in The Cincinnati Enquirer in Cincinnati, Ohio on Nov 24, 1911. Traces of ancient giants found in Kentucky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Giant Mystery: 18 Strange Skeletons Found in Wisconsin
> Nine-foot Skeletons with Huge Heads and Strange Facial Features Shocked Scientists When They Were Uncovered 100 Years Ago
> Here’s one for your “Forbidden Archaeology” file.
> Scientists are remaining stubbornly silent about a lost race of giants found in burial mounds near Lake Delavan, Wisconsin, in May 1912.
> The dig site at Lake Delavan was overseen by Beloit College and it included more than 200 effigy mounds that proved to be classic examples of 8th century Woodland Culture. But the enormous size of the skeletons and elongated skulls found in May 1912 did not fit very neatly into anyone’s concept of a textbook standard.
> They were enormous. These were not average human beings.
> Strange Skulls
> First reported in the 4 May 1912 issue of the New York Times, the 18 skeletons found by the Peterson brothers on Lake Lawn Farm in southwest Wisconsin exhibited several strange and freakish features.
> Their heights ranged between seven and nine feet and their skulls “presumably those of men, are much larger than the heads of any race which inhabit America to-day.”
> Above the eye sockets, “the head slopes straight back and the nasal bones protrude far above the cheek bones. The jaw bones are long and pointed, bearing a minute resemblance to the head of the monkey. The teeth in the front of the jaw are regular molars.”
> Mystery of The Wisconsin Giants
> Was this some sort of prank, a hoax played by local farm boys or a demented taxidermist for fun and the attention of the press? The answer is no.
> The Lake Delavan find of May 1912 was only one of dozens and dozens of similar finds that were reported in local newspapers from 1851 forward to the present day. It was not even the first set of giant skeletons found in Wisconsin.
> On 10 August 1891, the New York Times reported that scientists from the Smithsonian Institution had discovered several large “pyramidal monuments” on Lake Mills, near Madison, Wisconsin. “Madison was in ancient days the centre of a teeming population numbering not less than 200,000,” the Times said. The excavators found an elaborate system of defensive works which they named Fort Aztalan.
> “The celebrated mounds of Ohio and Indiana can bear no comparison, either in size, design or the skill displayed in their construction with these gigantic and mysterious monuments of earth — erected we know not by whom, and for what purpose we can only conjecture,” said the Times.
> On 20 December 1897, the Times followed up with a report on three large burial mounds that had been discovered in Maple Creek, Wisconsin. One had recently been opened.
> “In it was found the skeleton of a man of gigantic size. The bones measured from head to foot over nine feet and were in a fair state of preservation. The skull was as large as a half bushel measure. Some finely tempered rods of copper and other relics were lying near the bones.”
> Giant skulls and skeletons of a race of “Goliaths” have been found on a very regular basis throughout the Midwestern states for more than 100 years. Giants have been found in Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky and New York, and their burial sites are similar to the well-known mounds of the Mound Builder people.
> The spectrum of Mound builder history spans a period of more than 5,000 years (from 3400 BCE to the 16th CE), a period greater than the history of Ancient Egypt and all of its dynasties.
> There is a “prevailing scholarly consensus” that we have an adequate historical understanding of the peoples who lived in North America during this period. However, the long record of anomalous finds like those at Lake Delavan suggests otherwise.
> The Great Smithsonian Cover-Up
> Has there been a giant cover-up? Why aren’t there public displays of gigantic Native American skeletons at natural history museums?
> The skeletons of some Mound Builders are certainly on display. There is a wonderful exhibit, for example, at the Aztalan State Park where one may see the skeleton of a “Princess of Aztalan” in the museum.
> But the skeletons placed on display are normal-sized, and according to some sources, the skeletons of giants have been covered up. Specifically, the Smithsonian Institution has been accused of making a deliberate effort to hide the “telling of the bones” and to keep the giant skeletons locked away.
> In the words of Vine Deloria, a Native American author and professor of law:
> “Modern day archaeology and anthropology have nearly sealed the door on our imaginations, broadly interpreting the North American past as devoid of anything unusual in the way of great cultures characterized by a people of unusual demeanor. The great interloper of ancient burial grounds, the nineteenth century Smithsonian Institution, created a one-way portal, through which uncounted bones have been spirited. This door and the contents of its vault are virtually sealed off to anyone, but government officials. Among these bones may lay answers not even sought by these officials concerning the deep past.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Ten Giant Discoveries in North America
> 
> 
> The Iroquois, the Osage, the Tuscaroras, the Hurons, the Omahas, and many other North American Indians all speak of giant men who once lived and roamed in the territories of their forefathers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ancient-origins.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only have about another ten thousand credible links of archeological digs that produced the skeletal remains of 10 plus foot tall with double rows of teeth with six fingers and six toes. Indigenous tribes have passed down the history of cannibalistic giants and how they were eventually destroyed. You are such a sucker that believes that mankind evolved from gorillas and that abiotic fluids produced by the earth's crust has caused "Global Warming"....h wait....now it's called "Climate Change".........the joke is on you, dipshit.
Click to expand...

Those are NOT credible links, they're anecdotes/newspaper clippings from nowhere. Like Bigfoot (and small brain).
How many clippings do they have for Bigfoot?
LOFL.
Ancient-origins is a conspiracy website.
I see their fantastic stories go by on Facebook, then check them out.
BS.

I already debunked your Insane (for the day) POS with USA Today and National Geographic.
Truly credible links.

You Lost and you need to be institutionalized Chemtrails Clown.
Only poor moderation (and plat membership) allow you to post anywhere but the Conspiracy section.

`


----------



## Dale Smith

abu afak said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So how do evolutionists explain the giant skeletal remains of beings unearthed that exceed as much as 15 feet tall?*
> 
> 
> 
> Hey you stupid ConspiracYst Freak!
> Any you don't believe?
> You need to be institutionalized.
> 
> You mean these 15 footers?
> 
> *Fact check: Online post showing giant human skeletons is an old hoax*
> USA TODAY, Sept 8, 2020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact check: Online post showing giant human skeletons is an old hoax
> 
> 
> Giant human skeletons were not discovered then destroyed. This legend has been around for years, if not centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usatoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Skeleton of Giant" Is Internet Photo Hoax*
> National Geographic - December 14, 2007
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find Out How the Giant Skeleton Hoax Started
> 
> 
> National Geographic has not discovered ancient giant humans, despite rampant reports and pictures. But we have discovered how the hoax started and perhaps why people believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationalgeographic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for another chance to show what a JOKE you are.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traces of ancient giants found in Kentucky. - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> Clipping found in The Cincinnati Enquirer in Cincinnati, Ohio on Nov 24, 1911. Traces of ancient giants found in Kentucky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Giant Mystery: 18 Strange Skeletons Found in Wisconsin
> Nine-foot Skeletons with Huge Heads and Strange Facial Features Shocked Scientists When They Were Uncovered 100 Years Ago
> Here’s one for your “Forbidden Archaeology” file.
> Scientists are remaining stubbornly silent about a lost race of giants found in burial mounds near Lake Delavan, Wisconsin, in May 1912.
> The dig site at Lake Delavan was overseen by Beloit College and it included more than 200 effigy mounds that proved to be classic examples of 8th century Woodland Culture. But the enormous size of the skeletons and elongated skulls found in May 1912 did not fit very neatly into anyone’s concept of a textbook standard.
> They were enormous. These were not average human beings.
> Strange Skulls
> First reported in the 4 May 1912 issue of the New York Times, the 18 skeletons found by the Peterson brothers on Lake Lawn Farm in southwest Wisconsin exhibited several strange and freakish features.
> Their heights ranged between seven and nine feet and their skulls “presumably those of men, are much larger than the heads of any race which inhabit America to-day.”
> Above the eye sockets, “the head slopes straight back and the nasal bones protrude far above the cheek bones. The jaw bones are long and pointed, bearing a minute resemblance to the head of the monkey. The teeth in the front of the jaw are regular molars.”
> Mystery of The Wisconsin Giants
> Was this some sort of prank, a hoax played by local farm boys or a demented taxidermist for fun and the attention of the press? The answer is no.
> The Lake Delavan find of May 1912 was only one of dozens and dozens of similar finds that were reported in local newspapers from 1851 forward to the present day. It was not even the first set of giant skeletons found in Wisconsin.
> On 10 August 1891, the New York Times reported that scientists from the Smithsonian Institution had discovered several large “pyramidal monuments” on Lake Mills, near Madison, Wisconsin. “Madison was in ancient days the centre of a teeming population numbering not less than 200,000,” the Times said. The excavators found an elaborate system of defensive works which they named Fort Aztalan.
> “The celebrated mounds of Ohio and Indiana can bear no comparison, either in size, design or the skill displayed in their construction with these gigantic and mysterious monuments of earth — erected we know not by whom, and for what purpose we can only conjecture,” said the Times.
> On 20 December 1897, the Times followed up with a report on three large burial mounds that had been discovered in Maple Creek, Wisconsin. One had recently been opened.
> “In it was found the skeleton of a man of gigantic size. The bones measured from head to foot over nine feet and were in a fair state of preservation. The skull was as large as a half bushel measure. Some finely tempered rods of copper and other relics were lying near the bones.”
> Giant skulls and skeletons of a race of “Goliaths” have been found on a very regular basis throughout the Midwestern states for more than 100 years. Giants have been found in Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky and New York, and their burial sites are similar to the well-known mounds of the Mound Builder people.
> The spectrum of Mound builder history spans a period of more than 5,000 years (from 3400 BCE to the 16th CE), a period greater than the history of Ancient Egypt and all of its dynasties.
> There is a “prevailing scholarly consensus” that we have an adequate historical understanding of the peoples who lived in North America during this period. However, the long record of anomalous finds like those at Lake Delavan suggests otherwise.
> The Great Smithsonian Cover-Up
> Has there been a giant cover-up? Why aren’t there public displays of gigantic Native American skeletons at natural history museums?
> The skeletons of some Mound Builders are certainly on display. There is a wonderful exhibit, for example, at the Aztalan State Park where one may see the skeleton of a “Princess of Aztalan” in the museum.
> But the skeletons placed on display are normal-sized, and according to some sources, the skeletons of giants have been covered up. Specifically, the Smithsonian Institution has been accused of making a deliberate effort to hide the “telling of the bones” and to keep the giant skeletons locked away.
> In the words of Vine Deloria, a Native American author and professor of law:
> “Modern day archaeology and anthropology have nearly sealed the door on our imaginations, broadly interpreting the North American past as devoid of anything unusual in the way of great cultures characterized by a people of unusual demeanor. The great interloper of ancient burial grounds, the nineteenth century Smithsonian Institution, created a one-way portal, through which uncounted bones have been spirited. This door and the contents of its vault are virtually sealed off to anyone, but government officials. Among these bones may lay answers not even sought by these officials concerning the deep past.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Ten Giant Discoveries in North America
> 
> 
> The Iroquois, the Osage, the Tuscaroras, the Hurons, the Omahas, and many other North American Indians all speak of giant men who once lived and roamed in the territories of their forefathers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ancient-origins.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only have about another ten thousand credible links of archeological digs that produced the skeletal remains of 10 plus foot tall with double rows of teeth with six fingers and six toes. Indigenous tribes have passed down the history of cannibalistic giants and how they were eventually destroyed. You are such a sucker that believes that mankind evolved from gorillas and that abiotic fluids produced by the earth's crust has caused "Global Warming"....h wait....now it's called "Climate Change".........the joke is on you, dipshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are NOT credible links, they're anecdotes/newspaper clippings from nowhere. Like Bigfoot (and small brain).
> How many clippings do they have for Bigfoot?
> LOFL.
> Ancient-origins is a conspiracy website.
> I see their fantastic stories go by on Facebook, then check them out.
> BS.
> 
> I already debunked your Insane (for the day) POS with USA Today and National Geographic.
> Truly credible links.
> 
> You Lost and you need to be institutionalized Chemtrails Clown.
> Only poor moderation (and plat membership) allow you to post anywhere but the Conspiracy section.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Your butt-hurt  has been duly noted.You debunked nothing. Even before the 25 most influential newspapers like the New York Times that were bought up by the robber barons in the late 1920's have archived articles of giant skeletal remains that were uncovered in nearly every state. You "poo-poo" the fact that stratospheric aerosol injection spraying of heavy metal nano-particulates is a scientific fact according to water and soil samples for weather manipulation purposes and 17 other military applications with over a hundred patents easily found on the internet but it changes "zilch".

I know more than you because I have invested the time and effort. The IPCC is simply an arm of the U.N whose agenda is to create a one world governmental body by creating a crisis that they created with offshoot organizations like the Club Of Rome that borrowed from the playbook of the Iron Mountain Report. Let it go, walk away....you are in a "no win" situation", lil fella.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee




----------



## Dale Smith

Deplorable Yankee said:


> View attachment 469109


Kicking abu's ass is like child's play......he blusters and pretends that he has reached his conclusions by due diligence when in all actuality, he is just copying and pasting material from those that have sucked him in.........it would be comical if it wasn't such a sad commentary of how utterly gullible one can be.


----------



## abu afak

Dale Smith said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 469109
> 
> 
> 
> Kicking abu's ass is like child's play......he blusters and pretends that he has reached his conclusions by due diligence when in all actuality, he is just copying and pasting material from those that have sucked him in.........it would be comical if it wasn't such a sad commentary of how utterly gullible one can be.
Click to expand...

Complaining about real Info/sources?
IOW you can try making up any **** and we just go back and forth Yes/no humoring your insanity.
Not going to happen fruitcake.
You're sick.
You believe in every conspiracy theory, and post No or Wack Job links.
A total committable Nut bag who should NOT be allowed out of the Conspiracy section to Troll sane people in real topics.
(PS: but thx for bumping/Promoting MY OP.)


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dale Smith said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So how do evolutionists explain the giant skeletal remains of beings unearthed that exceed as much as 15 feet tall?*
> 
> 
> 
> Hey you stupid ConspiracYst Freak!
> Any you don't believe?
> You need to be institutionalized.
> 
> You mean these 15 footers?
> 
> *Fact check: Online post showing giant human skeletons is an old hoax*
> USA TODAY, Sept 8, 2020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact check: Online post showing giant human skeletons is an old hoax
> 
> 
> Giant human skeletons were not discovered then destroyed. This legend has been around for years, if not centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usatoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Skeleton of Giant" Is Internet Photo Hoax*
> National Geographic - December 14, 2007
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find Out How the Giant Skeleton Hoax Started
> 
> 
> National Geographic has not discovered ancient giant humans, despite rampant reports and pictures. But we have discovered how the hoax started and perhaps why people believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationalgeographic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for another chance to show what a JOKE you are.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traces of ancient giants found in Kentucky. - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> Clipping found in The Cincinnati Enquirer in Cincinnati, Ohio on Nov 24, 1911. Traces of ancient giants found in Kentucky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Giant Mystery: 18 Strange Skeletons Found in Wisconsin
> Nine-foot Skeletons with Huge Heads and Strange Facial Features Shocked Scientists When They Were Uncovered 100 Years Ago
> Here’s one for your “Forbidden Archaeology” file.
> Scientists are remaining stubbornly silent about a lost race of giants found in burial mounds near Lake Delavan, Wisconsin, in May 1912.
> The dig site at Lake Delavan was overseen by Beloit College and it included more than 200 effigy mounds that proved to be classic examples of 8th century Woodland Culture. But the enormous size of the skeletons and elongated skulls found in May 1912 did not fit very neatly into anyone’s concept of a textbook standard.
> They were enormous. These were not average human beings.
> Strange Skulls
> First reported in the 4 May 1912 issue of the New York Times, the 18 skeletons found by the Peterson brothers on Lake Lawn Farm in southwest Wisconsin exhibited several strange and freakish features.
> Their heights ranged between seven and nine feet and their skulls “presumably those of men, are much larger than the heads of any race which inhabit America to-day.”
> Above the eye sockets, “the head slopes straight back and the nasal bones protrude far above the cheek bones. The jaw bones are long and pointed, bearing a minute resemblance to the head of the monkey. The teeth in the front of the jaw are regular molars.”
> Mystery of The Wisconsin Giants
> Was this some sort of prank, a hoax played by local farm boys or a demented taxidermist for fun and the attention of the press? The answer is no.
> The Lake Delavan find of May 1912 was only one of dozens and dozens of similar finds that were reported in local newspapers from 1851 forward to the present day. It was not even the first set of giant skeletons found in Wisconsin.
> On 10 August 1891, the New York Times reported that scientists from the Smithsonian Institution had discovered several large “pyramidal monuments” on Lake Mills, near Madison, Wisconsin. “Madison was in ancient days the centre of a teeming population numbering not less than 200,000,” the Times said. The excavators found an elaborate system of defensive works which they named Fort Aztalan.
> “The celebrated mounds of Ohio and Indiana can bear no comparison, either in size, design or the skill displayed in their construction with these gigantic and mysterious monuments of earth — erected we know not by whom, and for what purpose we can only conjecture,” said the Times.
> On 20 December 1897, the Times followed up with a report on three large burial mounds that had been discovered in Maple Creek, Wisconsin. One had recently been opened.
> “In it was found the skeleton of a man of gigantic size. The bones measured from head to foot over nine feet and were in a fair state of preservation. The skull was as large as a half bushel measure. Some finely tempered rods of copper and other relics were lying near the bones.”
> Giant skulls and skeletons of a race of “Goliaths” have been found on a very regular basis throughout the Midwestern states for more than 100 years. Giants have been found in Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky and New York, and their burial sites are similar to the well-known mounds of the Mound Builder people.
> The spectrum of Mound builder history spans a period of more than 5,000 years (from 3400 BCE to the 16th CE), a period greater than the history of Ancient Egypt and all of its dynasties.
> There is a “prevailing scholarly consensus” that we have an adequate historical understanding of the peoples who lived in North America during this period. However, the long record of anomalous finds like those at Lake Delavan suggests otherwise.
> The Great Smithsonian Cover-Up
> Has there been a giant cover-up? Why aren’t there public displays of gigantic Native American skeletons at natural history museums?
> The skeletons of some Mound Builders are certainly on display. There is a wonderful exhibit, for example, at the Aztalan State Park where one may see the skeleton of a “Princess of Aztalan” in the museum.
> But the skeletons placed on display are normal-sized, and according to some sources, the skeletons of giants have been covered up. Specifically, the Smithsonian Institution has been accused of making a deliberate effort to hide the “telling of the bones” and to keep the giant skeletons locked away.
> In the words of Vine Deloria, a Native American author and professor of law:
> “Modern day archaeology and anthropology have nearly sealed the door on our imaginations, broadly interpreting the North American past as devoid of anything unusual in the way of great cultures characterized by a people of unusual demeanor. The great interloper of ancient burial grounds, the nineteenth century Smithsonian Institution, created a one-way portal, through which uncounted bones have been spirited. This door and the contents of its vault are virtually sealed off to anyone, but government officials. Among these bones may lay answers not even sought by these officials concerning the deep past.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Ten Giant Discoveries in North America
> 
> 
> The Iroquois, the Osage, the Tuscaroras, the Hurons, the Omahas, and many other North American Indians all speak of giant men who once lived and roamed in the territories of their forefathers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ancient-origins.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only have about another ten thousand credible links of archeological digs that produced the skeletal remains of 10 plus foot tall with double rows of teeth with six fingers and six toes. Indigenous tribes have passed down the history of cannibalistic giants and how they were eventually destroyed. You are such a sucker that believes that mankind evolved from gorillas and that abiotic fluids produced by the earth's crust has caused "Global Warming"....h wait....now it's called "Climate Change".........the joke is on you, dipshit.
Click to expand...

Fake.


----------



## marvin martian

abu afak said:


> Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
> Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.
> 
> *HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION*
> Smithsonian Magazine -- 4-19-2018
> 
> *""Rick Potts is no atheist-evolutionist-Darwinist.* That often comes as a surprise to the faith communities he works with as head of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Human Origins Program in Washington, D.C.
> 
> Raised Protestant — with, he likes to say, “an emphasis on the ‘protest’” — the paleoanthropologist spends his weekends singing in a choir that sings both sacred and secular songs. At 18, he became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War...
> [....]That’s why, for him, human evolution is the perfect topic to break down entrenched barriers between people in an increasingly polarized, politicized world.
> [.....]
> If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: *Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.*
> 
> What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, *among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?*
> [.....]
> [.....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution
> 
> 
> For two years, researchers from the Smithsonian traveled the country explaining the science of our shared origins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com



I have the same problem with people like you, who believe a man can turn himself into a woman by putting on a wig.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think we're made of materials, when in fact we're made of energy.
> 
> 
> 
> Then cut off your hand, weigh it, and reattach it. Report back on its "weightlessness". Since you are so sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Consciousness is a byproduct of chemicals and materials, when in fact we live in a self aware Universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Magical nonsense. Yes, your consciousness is completely contained within and a product of the physical system that is your brain. You have not a shred of evidence to the contrary, and your magical declarations hold no weight here. Take that garbage to the religion section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not alone in that thinking either,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well no shit, that's why we arent still in the stone age. Well, most of us.
Click to expand...


In "Autobiography of a Yogi" I think 2 different yogis reattach limbs.


----------



## abu afak

marvin martian said:


> *I have the same problem with people like you, who believe a man can turn himself into a woman by putting on a wig.*


Evolution has NOTHING to do with Transgender **** you Redneck POS.
Evolution is not a political/liberal position, it's a Scientific FACT.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

marvin martian said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
> Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.
> 
> *HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION*
> Smithsonian Magazine -- 4-19-2018
> 
> *""Rick Potts is no atheist-evolutionist-Darwinist.* That often comes as a surprise to the faith communities he works with as head of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Human Origins Program in Washington, D.C.
> 
> Raised Protestant — with, he likes to say, “an emphasis on the ‘protest’” — the paleoanthropologist spends his weekends singing in a choir that sings both sacred and secular songs. At 18, he became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War...
> [....]That’s why, for him, human evolution is the perfect topic to break down entrenched barriers between people in an increasingly polarized, politicized world.
> [.....]
> If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: *Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.*
> 
> What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, *among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?*
> [.....]
> [.....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution
> 
> 
> For two years, researchers from the Smithsonian traveled the country explaining the science of our shared origins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have the same problem with people like you, who believe a man can turn himself into a woman by putting on a wig.
Click to expand...

So what? You are always whining like a little b**** about something or other.


----------



## marvin martian

abu afak said:


> marvin martian said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I have the same problem with people like you, who believe a man can turn himself into a woman by putting on a wig.*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has NOTHING to do with Transgender **** you Redneck POS.
> Evolution is not a political/liberal position, it's a Scientific FACT.
> 
> `
Click to expand...


So you deny the science of transgenderism.  I knew you would, you little jihadi bitch.  Say hi to your nine year old wife for me.


----------



## abu afak

marvin martian said:


> So you deny the science of transgenderism.  I knew you would, you little jihadi bitch.  Say hi to your nine year old wife for me.


Transgenderism is OFF TOPIC here you Cross-Dressing POOF with a Cowboy hat.
If you have anything on evolution despite not even attending Elementary school, THAT is the topic
If Not, ALL YOUR OFF TOPIC posts get REPORTED.

`


----------



## marvin martian

abu afak said:


> marvin martian said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you deny the science of transgenderism.  I knew you would, you little jihadi bitch.  Say hi to your nine year old wife for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Transgenderism is OFF TOPIC here you Cross-Dressing POOF with a Cowboy hat.
> If you have anything on evolution despite not even attending Elementary school, THAT is the topic
> If Not, ALL YOUR OFF TOPIC posts get REPORTED.
> 
> `
Click to expand...


You're protesting an awful lot, here.  You know, you don't have to hide your homosexuality in America.  We're a tolerant nation, no one will throw you off a building like in the shithole country you came from.


----------



## TNHarley

abu afak said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you manage to believe the 'Astronaut Theory' without any difficulty at all, let alone evidence, when there is much more evidence for evolution of species. Oh well, colour me surprised. And you exceptional.
> 
> 
> 
> And the problem/IDIOCY with the 'Astronaut Theory' is it solves NOTHING.
> It just kicks the 'life' problem down the Universe!
> The non-solution of a low IQer.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Why does it have to solve something?
Isnt that what our savage ancestors did with religion?


----------



## Dale Smith

abu afak said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 469109
> 
> 
> 
> Kicking abu's ass is like child's play......he blusters and pretends that he has reached his conclusions by due diligence when in all actuality, he is just copying and pasting material from those that have sucked him in.........it would be comical if it wasn't such a sad commentary of how utterly gullible one can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Complaining about real Info/sources?
> IOW you can try making up any **** and we just go back and forth Yes/no humoring your insanity.
> Not going to happen fruitcake.
> You're sick.
> You believe in every conspiracy theory, and post No or Wack Job links.
> A total committable Nut bag who should NOT be allowed out of the Conspiracy section to Troll sane people in real topics.
> (PS: but thx for bumping/Promoting MY OP.)
Click to expand...

 What you hate is anyone that dares to question your lame  talking points because you then have to stray from the script. I am the real deal, my name is real, my pics are of me. I have nothing to hide. I have been interviewed on numerous shows and podcasts that reach millions of people. You have the same mindset as of those that run Communist China and ran the USSR...don't fall in lock-step with their ideals = "nut job". I am a free thinker that thinks outside of the box. I question everything I am being fed and if it doesn't pass my "sniff test"? I speak out about it and no lily-livered coward like you can do a fucking thing about it and it galls you. I am glad that it does piss you off. I love it when you go on rants when others take you to task. I can just imagine you pounding your keyboard while seething with anger. Those that know truth because they have done the work do not need to seek approval. They make their case and let the evidence stand on it's own merits and emotion doesn't play into the equation. You suffer from a severe case of arrested development and try as I may, I can't muster up any sympathy for ya.


----------



## abu afak

TNHarley said:


> Why does it have to solve something?
> Isnt that what our savage ancestors did with religion?


BECAUSE "solving it" is the reason/UNBACKED justification people use for believing in god/s.
Hark!
Thanks for unwittingly agreeing with the Logical Atheist point of view.. we don't know/know yet.
On evolution we do know it is a Fact as well as still learning mechanism..
on abiogenesis.... still in the fire, though looking more like accident of extant non-living long molecule chains.

`


----------



## TNHarley

abu afak said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it have to solve something?
> Isnt that what our savage ancestors did with religion?
> 
> 
> 
> BECAUSE "solving it" is the reason/UNBACKED justification people use for believing in god/s.
> Hark!
> Thanks for unwittingly agreeing with the Logical Atheist point of view.. we don't know/know yet.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

I know you want to solve it but until you do, why throw away other theories to support the one you believe in most? 
I didnt unwittingly do anything. Its what i have always believed. Apparently you dont because you are doing the same thing the religious do.


----------



## surada

marvin martian said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> marvin martian said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I have the same problem with people like you, who believe a man can turn himself into a woman by putting on a wig.*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has NOTHING to do with Transgender **** you Redneck POS.
> Evolution is not a political/liberal position, it's a Scientific FACT.
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you deny the science of transgenderism.  I knew you would, you little jihadi bitch.  Say hi to your nine year old wife for me.
Click to expand...


You sure are a loser. You know there are over 250 creation stories. Do you want to teach all of them in school?


----------



## abu afak

TNHarley said:


> I know you want to solve it but until you do, why throw away other theories to support the one you believe in most?
> I didnt unwittingly do anything. Its what i have always believed. Apparently you dont because you are doing the same thing the religious do.


Evolution is a demonstrable fact/SOLVED.
Literal Religionist reject that solved and demonstrable fact.
This thread is ON Evolution and those who deny a SOLVED fact.. and how to reach them because of their (non-Evidentiary) religious Indoctrination.
It is not a 'religion' to believe in evolution... or gravity.
Got it now 12 IQ boy?

`


----------



## TNHarley

abu afak said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you want to solve it but until you do, why throw away other theories to support the one you believe in most?
> I didnt unwittingly do anything. Its what i have always believed. Apparently you dont because you are doing the same thing the religious do.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a demonstrable fact/SOLVED.
> Literal Religionist reject that solved and demonstrable fact.
> This thread is ON Evolution and those who deny a SOLVED fact.. and how to reach them because of their (non-Evidentiary) religious Indoctrination.
> It is not a 'religion' to believe in evolution... or gravity.
> Got it now 12 IQ boy?
> 
> `
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? 
I didnt say i did or not believe in evolution. You were discounting the Astronaut theory because it wasnt solvable yet. I was simply calling out your lack of logic.
Try to follow conversations please. Thanks.


----------



## marvin martian

surada said:


> marvin martian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> marvin martian said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I have the same problem with people like you, who believe a man can turn himself into a woman by putting on a wig.*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has NOTHING to do with Transgender **** you Redneck POS.
> Evolution is not a political/liberal position, it's a Scientific FACT.
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you deny the science of transgenderism.  I knew you would, you little jihadi bitch.  Say hi to your nine year old wife for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure are a loser. You know there are over 250 creation stories. Do you want to teach all of them in school?
Click to expand...


You're not intellectually equipped to be in this conversation.  Get lost.


----------



## abu afak

TNHarley said:


> WTF are you talking about?
> I didnt say i did or not believe in evolution. You were discounting the Astronaut theory because it wasnt solvable yet. I was simply calling out your lack of logic.
> Try to follow conversations please. Thanks.


Astronuat Theory solves nothing.
If three men/astronauts go to the moon FROM earth...
That does not solve NOR help discover how life started in the FIRST place.
That IS ALWAYS the issue here due to the religious nut bags who post here...
and also Lump Abiogenesis in With Evolution.
`


----------



## TNHarley

abu afak said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?
> I didnt say i did or not believe in evolution. You were discounting the Astronaut theory because it wasnt solvable yet. I was simply calling out your lack of logic.
> Try to follow conversations please. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Astronuat Theory solves nothing.
> If three men/astonauts go to the moon FROM earth...
> That does not solve NOR help discover how life started in the FIRST place.
> That IS ALWAYS the issue here du to the religious nutbags who post here.
> `
Click to expand...

Evolution shows how life started?


----------



## abu afak

TNHarley said:


> Evolution shows how life started?


NO.
But Creationists always lump that into evolution because it is NOT yet a fact.
Evolution happened no matter how life 'sparked,' and a soon as it did.
Some like to think that the existence of life also 'evolved' from naturally occurring, non-living, complex long chain molecules that have natural tendencies to form into structures that are very much like life.
(I have TWO threads on that on THIS page) (WTF!)

`


----------



## TNHarley

abu afak said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution shows how life started?
> 
> 
> 
> NO.
> But Creationists always lump that into evolution because it is NOT yet a fact.
> Evolution happened no matter how life 'sparked,' and a soon as it did.
> Some like to think that the existence of life also 'evolved' from naturally occurring, non-living, complex long chain molecules that have natural tendencies to form into structures that are very much like life.
> (I have TWO threads on that on THIS page) (WTF!)
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Then what did you mean by this
_That does not solve NOR help discover how life started in the FIRST place._
Evolution does neither of those. But that is justification for ignoring another theory? lol
As i said, you have an astounding lack of logic. And apparently consistency.


----------



## abu afak

TNHarley said:


> Then what did you mean by this
> _That does not solve NOR help discover how life started in the FIRST place._
> Evolution does neither of those. But that is justification for ignoring another theory? lol
> As i said, you have an astounding lack of logic. And apparently consistency.


I was Responding to Toth who kept advocating it in THIS EVOLUTION thread.
THAT is the context and that's how it came up.
He also questioned whether man predated what evolution demonstrates are our ancestors.

If you have any experience with evo-denying freaks, you know the routine.
We have a few conspiracYsts in this thread, including religionists: the biggest conspiracy of them all.

Again..
I try and discuss the issues separately (AGAIN, TWO OPs on Abio THIS page)

You lost.
Now it's back to Mensa for me and back to MAGA for you.
`
`


----------



## Ringtone

AFrench2 said:


> Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.




So Darwin proved that naturalism is true, eh?  When did he do that?  Link?


----------



## AFrench2

Ringtone said:


> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Darwin proved that naturalism is true, eh?  When did he do that?  Link?
Click to expand...

Sure, let me get your link for you 

*Time machines you back to 7th grade Science*

There you go, have fun. There's your link. Learn something this time.


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> *So Darwin proved that naturalism is true, eh?  When did he do that?  Link?*


Darwin, and a subsequent LANDSLIDE of EVIDENCE: Yes.

Wiki:

*Contents*

1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1 Genetics
1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry

2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 Vestigial structures
2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy

3 Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples from paleontology

4 Evidence from biogeography
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.3 Ring species
4.4 Specific examples from biogeography

5 Evidence from selection
5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
5.2 Invertebrates
5.3 Microbes
5.4 Plants and fungi
5.5 Vertebrates

6 Evidence from speciation
6.1 Fossils
6.2 Invertebrates
6.3 Plants
6.4 Vertebrates

7 Evidence from coloration
7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
7.2 Camouflage

8 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
9 See also
10 References
11 Sources
12 External links


----------



## abu afak

*Ringtone's EVIDENCE for god?

ZERO hard evidence.

Just Philosophical masturbation trolling.*

`


----------



## Ringtone

fncceo said:


> How about you just don't?
> 
> The facts of science don't change if someone doesn't believe in them.
> 
> There really is no point in trying to educate the mind of someone who isn't seeking to learn the truth.



The metaphysical presupposition of naturalism on which the hypothesis of evolution is predicated is a scientific fact?  Link?


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> The metaphysical presupposition of naturalism on which the hypothesis of evolution is predicated is a scientific fact?  Link?


I Just did that for you/TO you.

Darwin, and a subsequent LANDSLIDE of EVIDENCE: Yes.

Wiki:

*Contents*

1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1 Genetics
1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry

2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 Vestigial structures
2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy

3 Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples from paleontology

4 Evidence from biogeography
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.3 Ring species
4.4 Specific examples from biogeography

5 Evidence from selection
5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
5.2 Invertebrates
5.3 Microbes
5.4 Plants and fungi
5.5 Vertebrates

6 Evidence from speciation
6.1 Fossils
6.2 Invertebrates
6.3 Plants
6.4 Vertebrates

7 Evidence from coloration
7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
7.2 Camouflage

8 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
9 See also
10 References
11 Sources
12 External links

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Abiogenesis happened somewhere. 


TNHarley said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution shows how life started?
> 
> 
> 
> NO.
> But Creationists always lump that into evolution because it is NOT yet a fact.
> Evolution happened no matter how life 'sparked,' and a soon as it did.
> Some like to think that the existence of life also 'evolved' from naturally occurring, non-living, complex long chain molecules that have natural tendencies to form into structures that are very much like life.
> (I have TWO threads on that on THIS page) (WTF!)
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what did you mean by this
> _That does not solve NOR help discover how life started in the FIRST place._
> Evolution does neither of those. But that is justification for ignoring another theory? lol
> As i said, you have an astounding lack of logic. And apparently consistency.
Click to expand...

Abiogenesis happened somewhere. We know that.


----------



## TNHarley

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Abiogenesis happened somewhere.
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution shows how life started?
> 
> 
> 
> NO.
> But Creationists always lump that into evolution because it is NOT yet a fact.
> Evolution happened no matter how life 'sparked,' and a soon as it did.
> Some like to think that the existence of life also 'evolved' from naturally occurring, non-living, complex long chain molecules that have natural tendencies to form into structures that are very much like life.
> (I have TWO threads on that on THIS page) (WTF!)
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what did you mean by this
> _That does not solve NOR help discover how life started in the FIRST place._
> Evolution does neither of those. But that is justification for ignoring another theory? lol
> As i said, you have an astounding lack of logic. And apparently consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abiogenesis happened somewhere. We know that.
Click to expand...

yep. Even in the bible lol


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

TNHarley said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis happened somewhere.
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution shows how life started?
> 
> 
> 
> NO.
> But Creationists always lump that into evolution because it is NOT yet a fact.
> Evolution happened no matter how life 'sparked,' and a soon as it did.
> Some like to think that the existence of life also 'evolved' from naturally occurring, non-living, complex long chain molecules that have natural tendencies to form into structures that are very much like life.
> (I have TWO threads on that on THIS page) (WTF!)
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what did you mean by this
> _That does not solve NOR help discover how life started in the FIRST place._
> Evolution does neither of those. But that is justification for ignoring another theory? lol
> As i said, you have an astounding lack of logic. And apparently consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abiogenesis happened somewhere. We know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep. Even in the bible lol
Click to expand...

Hah, true. But best to reject the magical horseshit.


----------



## Ringtone

AFrench2 said:


> Sure, let me get your link for you
> 
> *Time machines you back to 7th grade Science*
> 
> There you go, have fun. There's your link. Learn something this time.



I'm steeped in the theoretical processes of and the putative evidence for evolution per several advanced courses at the collegiate level.  I grasp the theory just fine.  

Evolution is predicated on the metaphysics of naturalism, but you have no idea what I'm talking about because you've never thought the matter through . . . and you probably don't really know much about "the science of evolutionary theory" either.

Once again:

Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true?  Link?​


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> Once again:
> 
> Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true?  Link?​


*Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.

Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
In this case 160 years and counting.
All good.
Asking how the man who most famously first observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.

See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.

Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.
ZERO.
Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.*

`


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> The metaphysical presupposition of naturalism on which the hypothesis of evolution is predicated is a scientific fact?  Link?
> 
> 
> 
> I Just did that for you/TO you.
> 
> Darwin, and a subsequent LANDSLIDE of EVIDENCE: Yes.
> 
> Wiki:
> 
> *Contents*
> 
> 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 1.1 Genetics
> 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 
> 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
> 2.1 Atavisms
> 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
> 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
> 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
> 2.5 Vestigial structures
> 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
> 
> 3 Evidence from paleontology
> 3.1 Fossil record
> 3.2 Limitations
> 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
> 
> 4 Evidence from biogeography
> 4.1 Continental distribution
> 4.2 Island biogeography
> 4.3 Ring species
> 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
> 
> 5 Evidence from selection
> 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
> 5.2 Invertebrates
> 5.3 Microbes
> 5.4 Plants and fungi
> 5.5 Vertebrates
> 
> 6 Evidence from speciation
> 6.1 Fossils
> 6.2 Invertebrates
> 6.3 Plants
> 6.4 Vertebrates
> 
> 7 Evidence from coloration
> 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
> 7.2 Camouflage
> 
> 8 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
> 9 See also
> 10 References
> 11 Sources
> 12 External links
> 
> `
Click to expand...



_Yawn_

There's nothing you can teach me about the theory of evolution.  We've been over this before.  In fact, I've corrected many of your misconceptions about the theory from the evolutionist's perspective.

The foundation of your belief is naturalism, which is your religion.

Prove naturalism is true. I dare you.  I double dare you.


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> _Yawn_
> 
> There's nothing you can teach me about the theory of evolution.  We've been over this before.  In fact, I've corrected many of your misconceptions about the theory from the evolutionist's perspective.
> 
> The foundation of your belief is naturalism, which is your religion.
> 
> Prove naturalism is true. I dare you.  I double dare you.


YAWN

The post you quoted heavily/Overwhelmingly EVIDENCES it.
I just Lectured on the issue you Troll.
AGAIN:

*Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism/Evolution is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.

Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
In this case 160 years and counting.
All good.
Asking how the man who most famously first observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.

See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.

Reverend Ringtone (masquerading as a science objector), OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.
ZERO.
Not only no "proof" but Unlike Evolution, NO HARD EVIDENCE.
Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.*


`


----------



## Ringtone

CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = settled!
> 
> Can I get an Amen?
> 
> We have Concensus!




Their consensus is around the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.  That's their religion.


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Yawn_
> 
> There's nothing you can teach me about the theory of evolution.  We've been over this before.  In fact, I've corrected many of your misconceptions about the theory from the evolutionist's perspective.
> 
> The foundation of your belief is naturalism, which is your religion.
> 
> Prove naturalism is true. I dare you.  I double dare you.
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> 
> The post you quoted heavily/Overwhelmingly EVIDENCES it.
> I just Lectured on the issue you Troll.
> AGAIN:
> 
> *Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism/Evolution is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.
> 
> Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
> Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
> In this case 160 years and counting.
> All good.
> Asking how the man who most famously first observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.
> 
> See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
> UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.
> 
> Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.
> ZERO.
> Not only no "proof" but Unlike Evolution, NO HARD EVIDENCE.
> Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.*
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...



You gave overwhelming evidence for naturalism?


----------



## fncceo

Ringtone said:


> Evolution is predicated on the metaphysics of naturalism,



Actually,  it isn't at all.  Nothing in Evolution precludes the existence of a supernatural being. It merely describes how life, once introduced,  changes over time to create different forms of life.


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> You gave overwhelming evidence for naturalism?



Yep, overwhelming evidence for naturalism/Evolution/Common descent.
Unrefuted, Untouched.
*The Fraud Reverend Ringtone (masquerading as a fact-based objector) could not take issue with FOUR Meaty posts burying his dishonest fallacious posts.*
Nothing.

`


----------



## marvin martian

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis happened somewhere.
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution shows how life started?
> 
> 
> 
> NO.
> But Creationists always lump that into evolution because it is NOT yet a fact.
> Evolution happened no matter how life 'sparked,' and a soon as it did.
> Some like to think that the existence of life also 'evolved' from naturally occurring, non-living, complex long chain molecules that have natural tendencies to form into structures that are very much like life.
> (I have TWO threads on that on THIS page) (WTF!)
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what did you mean by this
> _That does not solve NOR help discover how life started in the FIRST place._
> Evolution does neither of those. But that is justification for ignoring another theory? lol
> As i said, you have an astounding lack of logic. And apparently consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abiogenesis happened somewhere. We know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep. Even in the bible lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hah, true. But best to reject the magical horseshit.
Click to expand...


Says the guy who believes a man can become a woman by putting on a wig.

LOL


----------



## abu afak

marvin martian said:


> Says the guy who believes a man can become a woman by putting on a wig.
> 
> LOL


Perhaps you could LINK that post/belief, or anything close, for the board you Lying POS?
No you can't because you're a Lying Troll.
I'm not interested in Gender issues or any failed procedure you may have had to become something else.
Now go check the propane tank before it blows Bubbette.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

marvin martian said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis happened somewhere.
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution shows how life started?
> 
> 
> 
> NO.
> But Creationists always lump that into evolution because it is NOT yet a fact.
> Evolution happened no matter how life 'sparked,' and a soon as it did.
> Some like to think that the existence of life also 'evolved' from naturally occurring, non-living, complex long chain molecules that have natural tendencies to form into structures that are very much like life.
> (I have TWO threads on that on THIS page) (WTF!)
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what did you mean by this
> _That does not solve NOR help discover how life started in the FIRST place._
> Evolution does neither of those. But that is justification for ignoring another theory? lol
> As i said, you have an astounding lack of logic. And apparently consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abiogenesis happened somewhere. We know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep. Even in the bible lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hah, true. But best to reject the magical horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the guy who believes a man can become a woman by putting on a wig.
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...

Says the moron who trusts Putin over America. Just another russian troll, stinking up the joint.


----------



## Ringtone

CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!





fncceo said:


> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.



Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.



fncceo said:


> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.



The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.

Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
Click to expand...


The usual gods of the gap pleading.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The usual gods of the gap pleading.
Click to expand...


Right, there must have been first cells: therefore evolution!

Science = Settled!


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The usual gods of the gap pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, there must have been first cells: therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = Settled!
Click to expand...

Well, if you find it too confusing, just screech out “the gawds did it”.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
Click to expand...

What, exactly, is “raw nature”?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The usual gods of the gap pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, there must have been first cells: therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = Settled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you find it too confusing, just screech out “the gawds did it”.
Click to expand...


It's not "too confusing" it's just physically soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unlikely as to be impossible

Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions


After the first cell triggered for whatever reason, nothing was "perfect." If it had enough faults it didn't live.
If it had some beneficial faults/mutation, they did better than the original and flourished.. and so on..
What better means changes as the environment changes.

No matter.
It's idiotic to look at current TRIAL-and-ERROR life (and many many more times the extinctions) as "perfect."
It's what's left after many times as many failed organisms.
Yeah, what's Left looks "perfect" or it would not have survived.
It was not engineered/ID, it's survivors and mutations.
And we/All life is still evolving.

`


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The usual gods of the gap pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, there must have been first cells: therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = Settled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you find it too confusing, just screech out “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "too confusing" it's just physically soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unlikely as to be impossible
> 
> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions
Click to expand...


Yes, the usual gods of the gaps pleading.

“It’s too complicated, therefore, “the gawds did it”.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The usual gods of the gap pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, there must have been first cells: therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = Settled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you find it too confusing, just screech out “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "too confusing" it's just physically soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unlikely as to be impossible
> 
> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the usual gods of the gaps pleading.
> 
> “It’s too complicated, therefore, “the gawds did it”.
Click to expand...


I can't explain it, therefore evolution!

Sounds a lot like the missing science behind Climate Change.  Yeah we can't ever demonstrate any of it and the math assures that our Theory fail, but we have Consensus!

Did you know that single Cells are complex?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions
> 
> 
> 
> After the first cell triggered for whatever reason, nothing was "perfect." If it had enough faults it didn't live.
> If it had some beneficial faults/mutation, they did better than the original and flourished.. and so on..
> What better means changes as the environment changes.
> 
> No matter.
> It's idiotic to look at current TRIAL-and-ERROR life (and many many more times the extinctions) as "perfect."
> It's what's left after many times as many failed organisms.
> Yeah, what's Left looks "perfect" or it would not have survived.
> It was not engineered/ID, it's survivors and mutations.
> And we/All life is still evolving.
> 
> `
Click to expand...


So explain to me how the proteins that handle say, digestion, were just hanging out in the "primordial soup" Your G-d of the Glops, just hung out waiting to place themselves perfectly in the first cell and knew enough not to digest the cell it - magically - just created

Don't bother.

"It's too complex, but we know it happened - cuz evolution made the first cell, therefore, evolution made the first cell! Science = settled!"


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Primordial Soup = G-d of the Glops.  It accounts for everything!  It's a soup and soup is good food!


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The usual gods of the gap pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, there must have been first cells: therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = Settled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you find it too confusing, just screech out “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "too confusing" it's just physically soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unlikely as to be impossible
> 
> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the usual gods of the gaps pleading.
> 
> “It’s too complicated, therefore, “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't explain it, therefore evolution!
> 
> Sounds a lot like the missing science behind Climate Change.  Yeah we can't ever demonstrate any of it and the math assures that our Theory fail, but we have Consensus!
> 
> Did you know that single Cells are complex?
Click to expand...

Well, actually, the biological sciences have gone a long say toward confirming the mechanisms of evolution. Most of us began learning about the biological sciences as early as 7th grade.

How strange that the biological sciences have given us medicines that cure disease even when prayer and rattling bones aren’t as effective.

Can you identify where the theory of evolution fails? And, more importantly, can you post the ID’iot creationer “*General Theory of The Gawds Did It*”?

It would be swell if we could finally abandon knowledge and learning and just trust your Allah god to make everything peachy keen.


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions
> 
> 
> 
> After the first cell triggered for whatever reason, nothing was "perfect." If it had enough faults it didn't live.
> If it had some beneficial faults/mutation, they did better than the original and flourished.. and so on..
> What better means changes as the environment changes.
> 
> No matter.
> It's idiotic to look at current TRIAL-and-ERROR life (and many many more times the extinctions) as "perfect."
> It's what's left after many times as many failed organisms.
> Yeah, what's Left looks "perfect" or it would not have survived.
> It was not engineered/ID, it's survivors and mutations.
> And we/All life is still evolving.
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So explain to me how the proteins that handle say, digestion, were just hanging out in the "primordial soup" Your G-d of the Glops, just hung out waiting to place themselves perfectly in the first cell and knew enough not to digest the cell it - magically - just created
> 
> Don't bother.
> 
> "It's too complex, but we know it happened - cuz evolution made the first cell, therefore, evolution made the first cell! Science = settled!"
Click to expand...


It’s pretty typical for “the gods did it’ists” to equate evolution with abiogenesis.

It’s like they never studied much of the STEM field subjects at the Benny Hinn madrassah.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The usual gods of the gap pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, there must have been first cells: therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = Settled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you find it too confusing, just screech out “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "too confusing" it's just physically soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unlikely as to be impossible
> 
> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the usual gods of the gaps pleading.
> 
> “It’s too complicated, therefore, “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't explain it, therefore evolution!
> 
> Sounds a lot like the missing science behind Climate Change.  Yeah we can't ever demonstrate any of it and the math assures that our Theory fail, but we have Consensus!
> 
> Did you know that single Cells are complex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, actually, the biological sciences have gone a long say toward confirming the mechanisms of evolution. Most of us began learning about the biological sciences as early as 7th grade.
> 
> How strange that the biological sciences have given us medicines that cure disease even when prayer and rattling boned aren’t as effective.
> 
> Can you identify where the theory of evolution fails? And, more importantly, can you post the ID’iot creationer “*General Theory of The Gawds Did It*”?
> 
> It would be swell if we could finally abandon knowledge and learning and just trust your Allah god to make everything peachy keen.
Click to expand...


The G-d of the Glops of Soup made the first cells!  It is known!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions
> 
> 
> 
> After the first cell triggered for whatever reason, nothing was "perfect." If it had enough faults it didn't live.
> If it had some beneficial faults/mutation, they did better than the original and flourished.. and so on..
> What better means changes as the environment changes.
> 
> No matter.
> It's idiotic to look at current TRIAL-and-ERROR life (and many many more times the extinctions) as "perfect."
> It's what's left after many times as many failed organisms.
> Yeah, what's Left looks "perfect" or it would not have survived.
> It was not engineered/ID, it's survivors and mutations.
> And we/All life is still evolving.
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So explain to me how the proteins that handle say, digestion, were just hanging out in the "primordial soup" Your G-d of the Glops, just hung out waiting to place themselves perfectly in the first cell and knew enough not to digest the cell it - magically - just created
> 
> Don't bother.
> 
> "It's too complex, but we know it happened - cuz evolution made the first cell, therefore, evolution made the first cell! Science = settled!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s pretty typical for “the gods did it’ists” to equate evolution with abiogenesis.
> 
> It’s like they never studied much of the STEM field subjects at the Benny Hinn madrassah.
Click to expand...


You haven't given one single coherent explanation of how something as complex as a single cell could form from a Glop of Primordial Soup.

Abiogenesis, you mean how it was 100% wrong, yet KNOWN that "Fossil fuels" came from, um fossils?


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The usual gods of the gap pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, there must have been first cells: therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = Settled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you find it too confusing, just screech out “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "too confusing" it's just physically soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unlikely as to be impossible
> 
> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the usual gods of the gaps pleading.
> 
> “It’s too complicated, therefore, “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't explain it, therefore evolution!
> 
> Sounds a lot like the missing science behind Climate Change.  Yeah we can't ever demonstrate any of it and the math assures that our Theory fail, but we have Consensus!
> 
> Did you know that single Cells are complex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, actually, the biological sciences have gone a long say toward confirming the mechanisms of evolution. Most of us began learning about the biological sciences as early as 7th grade.
> 
> How strange that the biological sciences have given us medicines that cure disease even when prayer and rattling boned aren’t as effective.
> 
> Can you identify where the theory of evolution fails? And, more importantly, can you post the ID’iot creationer “*General Theory of The Gawds Did It*”?
> 
> It would be swell if we could finally abandon knowledge and learning and just trust your Allah god to make everything peachy keen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The G-d of the Glops of Soup made the first cells!  It is known!
Click to expand...

If that’s what Benny Hinn told you, it must be true.


----------



## Ringtone

fncceo said:


> Actually, it isn't at all. Nothing in Evolution precludes the existence of a supernatural being. It merely describes how life, once introduced, changes over time to create different forms of life.   It merely describes how life, once introduced,  changes over time to create different forms of life.




Frist, I know what evolution purports to explain.  I'm steeped in the pertinent sciences, and I understand the theory's supposed mechanisms, it's supposed processes and it's supposed, evidentiary support.  I understand these things even better than virtually every evolutionist I've encountered on this board.

Second, I didn't say that evolution is necessarily predicated on philosophical/ontological naturalism.  The latter emphatically precludes God's existence.

I said it's predicated on naturalism, i.e., the assumption that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect_—_entailing a "transmutationally" branching process of speciation up from a common ancestry over geological time, wherein the evolutionist observes that adaptive radiation occurs and that the paleontological record demonstrates that species have appeared on Earth in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety, as other species have gone extinct.

We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry. All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity and variety have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time. This in no way falsifies the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The usual gods of the gap pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, there must have been first cells: therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = Settled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you find it too confusing, just screech out “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "too confusing" it's just physically soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unlikely as to be impossible
> 
> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the usual gods of the gaps pleading.
> 
> “It’s too complicated, therefore, “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't explain it, therefore evolution!
> 
> Sounds a lot like the missing science behind Climate Change.  Yeah we can't ever demonstrate any of it and the math assures that our Theory fail, but we have Consensus!
> 
> Did you know that single Cells are complex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, actually, the biological sciences have gone a long say toward confirming the mechanisms of evolution. Most of us began learning about the biological sciences as early as 7th grade.
> 
> How strange that the biological sciences have given us medicines that cure disease even when prayer and rattling bones aren’t as effective.
> 
> Can you identify where the theory of evolution fails? And, more importantly, can you post the ID’iot creationer “*General Theory of The Gawds Did It*”?
> 
> It would be swell if we could finally abandon knowledge and learning and just trust your Allah god to make everything peachy keen.
Click to expand...


Yes Evolution was a concept stuck in my head at a young age and now that I've been researching things on my own, I see how totally WRONG it is.


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions
> 
> 
> 
> After the first cell triggered for whatever reason, nothing was "perfect." If it had enough faults it didn't live.
> If it had some beneficial faults/mutation, they did better than the original and flourished.. and so on..
> What better means changes as the environment changes.
> 
> No matter.
> It's idiotic to look at current TRIAL-and-ERROR life (and many many more times the extinctions) as "perfect."
> It's what's left after many times as many failed organisms.
> Yeah, what's Left looks "perfect" or it would not have survived.
> It was not engineered/ID, it's survivors and mutations.
> And we/All life is still evolving.
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So explain to me how the proteins that handle say, digestion, were just hanging out in the "primordial soup" Your G-d of the Glops, just hung out waiting to place themselves perfectly in the first cell and knew enough not to digest the cell it - magically - just created
> 
> Don't bother.
> 
> "It's too complex, but we know it happened - cuz evolution made the first cell, therefore, evolution made the first cell! Science = settled!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s pretty typical for “the gods did it’ists” to equate evolution with abiogenesis.
> 
> It’s like they never studied much of the STEM field subjects at the Benny Hinn madrassah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't given one single coherent explanation of how something as complex as a single cell could form from a Glop of Primordial Soup.
> 
> Abiogenesis, you mean how it was 100% wrong, yet KNOWN that "Fossil fuels" came from, um fossils?
Click to expand...

The answer to your statement is “Allah did it”.


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The usual gods of the gap pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, there must have been first cells: therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = Settled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you find it too confusing, just screech out “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "too confusing" it's just physically soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unlikely as to be impossible
> 
> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the usual gods of the gaps pleading.
> 
> “It’s too complicated, therefore, “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't explain it, therefore evolution!
> 
> Sounds a lot like the missing science behind Climate Change.  Yeah we can't ever demonstrate any of it and the math assures that our Theory fail, but we have Consensus!
> 
> Did you know that single Cells are complex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, actually, the biological sciences have gone a long say toward confirming the mechanisms of evolution. Most of us began learning about the biological sciences as early as 7th grade.
> 
> How strange that the biological sciences have given us medicines that cure disease even when prayer and rattling bones aren’t as effective.
> 
> Can you identify where the theory of evolution fails? And, more importantly, can you post the ID’iot creationer “*General Theory of The Gawds Did It*”?
> 
> It would be swell if we could finally abandon knowledge and learning and just trust your Allah god to make everything peachy keen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Evolution was a concept stuck in my head at a young age and now that I've been researching things on my own, I see how totally WRONG it is.
Click to expand...


Science is one vast, global conspiracy.


----------



## themirrorthief

fncceo said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their [sic] are no Neanderthals left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a river splits in two ... the branches go off in different directions, one doesn't just cease to be.  The same is true of offspring.  When a mutation occurs, creating a new line, it doesn't affect the existing, non-mutated lines.
> 
> As for the Neanderthals, fossil evidence shows that modern humans not only co-existed with them, but mated with them.  Neanderthal DNA accounts for up to 20% of the genome of non-African humans.
> 
> The most plausible answer to where they went is, we killed them off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe we literally evolved from Apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, and neither does anyone else who understands Evolution.
> 
> Apes and Men both descended from another, much earlier, common mammalian ancestor.
> 
> A genetic mutation created two separated genealogical lines, one led to humans, the other led to apes.
Click to expand...

wow you must have been there when all this happened


----------



## themirrorthief

fncceo said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their [sic] are no Neanderthals left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a river splits in two ... the branches go off in different directions, one doesn't just cease to be.  The same is true of offspring.  When a mutation occurs, creating a new line, it doesn't affect the existing, non-mutated lines.
> 
> As for the Neanderthals, fossil evidence shows that modern humans not only co-existed with them, but mated with them.  Neanderthal DNA accounts for up to 20% of the genome of non-African humans.
> 
> The most plausible answer to where they went is, we killed them off.
Click to expand...

get real, neanderthals are among us...I see them all the time


----------



## themirrorthief

fncceo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still t,oday, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth.  But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> We also know that organic molecule that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> A third explanation might very well be currently beyond our understanding.
> 
> Evolution doesn't explain everything.  Just as the 'laws' of gravity don't tell us anything about how gravity actually works.  But, we can demonstrate gravity and we understand its effects, if not its workings, very well.
> 
> Evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life on Earth that fits the existing observations and evidence.
Click to expand...

I love science it gave us great things like nuclear bombs, machine guns and fake tits


----------



## Ringtone

The following is what has never occurred to you, AFrench2:





__





						Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution
					

I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!  Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




Don't make a fool out of yourself thinking you understand evolution better than I because I actually grasp what the theory is based on.  Naturalism is not true!


----------



## fncceo

themirrorthief said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their [sic] are no Neanderthals left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a river splits in two ... the branches go off in different directions, one doesn't just cease to be.  The same is true of offspring.  When a mutation occurs, creating a new line, it doesn't affect the existing, non-mutated lines.
> 
> As for the Neanderthals, fossil evidence shows that modern humans not only co-existed with them, but mated with them.  Neanderthal DNA accounts for up to 20% of the genome of non-African humans.
> 
> The most plausible answer to where they went is, we killed them off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe we literally evolved from Apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, and neither does anyone else who understands Evolution.
> 
> Apes and Men both descended from another, much earlier, common mammalian ancestor.
> 
> A genetic mutation created two separated genealogical lines, one led to humans, the other led to apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow you must have been there when all this happened
Click to expand...


I was. It was consensual.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> The following is what has never occurred to you, AFrench2:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!  Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make a fool out of yourself thinking you understand evolution better than I because I actually grasp what the theory is based on.  Naturalism is not true!


I’m afraid you understand nothing of the theory.


----------



## Ringtone

Say, abu afak, did you give the following post a thumbs down because you didn't like the facts or because you don't believe the facts?





__





						Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution
					

I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!  Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				






Prove me wrong.  Got link?


----------



## abu afak

I Refuted you FOUR times on Page 8, and you had no answer.
Trying/TROLLING again REVEREND RINGTONE?
Still No answer just a fake challenge.
No meat.



Ringtone said:


> *So Darwin proved that naturalism is true, eh?  When did he do that?  Link?*


Darwin, and a subsequent LANDSLIDE of EVIDENCE: Yes.

Wiki:

*Contents*

1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1 Genetics
1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry

2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 Vestigial structures
2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy

3 Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples from paleontology

4 Evidence from biogeography
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.3 Ring species
4.4 Specific examples from biogeography

5 Evidence from selection
5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
5.2 Invertebrates
5.3 Microbes
5.4 Plants and fungi
5.5 Vertebrates

6 Evidence from speciation
6.1 Fossils
6.2 Invertebrates
6.3 Plants
6.4 Vertebrates

7 Evidence from coloration
7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
7.2 Camouflage

8 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
9 See also
10 References
11 Sources
12 External links


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:
			
		

> Once again:
> 
> Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true? Link?


*Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.

Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
In this case 160 years and counting.
All good.
Asking how the man who most famously first Observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.

See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.


Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.
ZERO.
Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.

`*


----------



## Dale Smith

abu afak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again:
> 
> Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true? Link?
> 
> 
> 
> *Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.
> 
> Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
> Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
> In this case 160 years and counting.
> All good.
> Asking how the man who most famously first Observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.
> 
> See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
> UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.
> 
> 
> Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.
> ZERO.
> Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.
> 
> `*
Click to expand...

 Yeppers, Abu.......the big bang theory where a single cell amoeba rose out of the muck and mire and from it came all these plants, insects, animals and what we call "man and woman"........and you believe that intelligent design is far-fetched????????

How do you explain the skeletal remains of humans that had double rows of teeth and six fingers and six toes that have been dug up? You conveniently ignore that.........


(snicker)


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Science is one vast, global conspiracy.



Atheist science has become that since the 1850s.  Today, most scientists are atheists when it was more believers as scientists before.  One could disagree back then and be heard.  Now, we'll get lying "consensus" science under atheist science like "climate change."


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The usual gods of the gap pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, there must have been first cells: therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = Settled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you find it too confusing, just screech out “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "too confusing" it's just physically soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unlikely as to be impossible
> 
> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the usual gods of the gaps pleading.
> 
> “It’s too complicated, therefore, “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't explain it, therefore evolution!
> 
> Sounds a lot like the missing science behind Climate Change.  Yeah we can't ever demonstrate any of it and the math assures that our Theory fail, but we have Consensus!
> 
> Did you know that single Cells are complex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, actually, the biological sciences have gone a long say toward confirming the mechanisms of evolution. Most of us began learning about the biological sciences as early as 7th grade.
> 
> How strange that the biological sciences have given us medicines that cure disease even when prayer and rattling boned aren’t as effective.
> 
> Can you identify where the theory of evolution fails? And, more importantly, can you post the ID’iot creationer “*General Theory of The Gawds Did It*”?
> 
> It would be swell if we could finally abandon knowledge and learning and just trust your Allah god to make everything peachy keen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The G-d of the Glops of Soup made the first cells!  It is known!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that’s what Benny Hinn told you, it must be true.
Click to expand...


Who is Benny Hinn? You seem to assume a lot about what I know and how I know it, when did you study me? I must have missed that interview


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Intelligent design is only offensive to shoe wearing monkeys who have an inflated Ego on their shoulder telling them, "No one created you, you're special! You're just a by product of random chemical collusion over eons. In fact, even the very idea of you being "you" is just chemicals. Trust me on this. I know things"

You know how sometimes you assemble all of the materials to build a house, a far less complex structure than a living cell, and then a bolt of lightening strikes and - VIOLA! the house builds itself? Well, that's how evolutionists believe the first cells were formed. Stop laughing, they're serious about that


----------



## fncceo

Dale Smith said:


> the big bang theory where a single cell amoeba rose out of the muck and mire



The big bang came approximately 11 BILLION years before there was any muck or mire on Planet Earth.  It was several BILLION years AFTER The Big Bang that there were enough elements in the universe to even create muck and mire.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is one vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist science has become that since the 1850s.  Today, most scientists are atheists when it was more believers as scientists before.  One could disagree back then and be heard.  Now, we'll get lying "consensus" science under atheist science like "climate change."
Click to expand...

Religious fear and superstition has given way to knowledge and understanding since the 1850’s. When we compare modern science to the bibles, we're left with the bibles being truly terrible as science texts.

Yes, science took a detour away from fear and superstition in the 1850's. Yes, you lament the advances of science as you apparently lament the loss of the primacy of the church in Medieval Europe. You really do bang away at the “before the 1850’s” in an attempt to disparage science. 

Unfortunately for the hyper-religious, it was about that time when the objective sciences, learning and exploration began to blossom. 

I can understand that you lament the relative ignorance that defined the time centuries ago but I’m afraid that fear and superstition has been a victim of learning and enlightenment.


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Intelligent design is only offensive to shoe wearing monkeys who have an inflated Ego on their shoulder telling them, "No one created you, you're special! You're just a by product of random chemical collusion over eons. In fact, even the very idea of you being "you" is just chemicals. Trust me on this. I know things"
> 
> You know how sometimes you assemble all of the materials to build a house, a far less complex structure than a living cell, and then a bolt of lightening strikes and - VIOLA! the house builds itself? Well, that's how evolutionists believe the first cells were formed. Stop laughing, they're serious about that


ID’iot creationism is offensive to thinking humans. I've never read of a single instance of your gods or anyone else's gods throwing down a bolt of lightning that built a house. Your silly storytime tale makes no sense.


----------



## Mac-7

abu afak said:


> Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
> Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.
> 
> *HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION*
> Smithsonian Magazine -- 4-19-2018
> 
> *""Rick Potts is no atheist-evolutionist-Darwinist.* That often comes as a surprise to the faith communities he works with as head of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Human Origins Program in Washington, D.C.
> 
> Raised Protestant — with, he likes to say, “an emphasis on the ‘protest’” — the paleoanthropologist spends his weekends singing in a choir that sings both sacred and secular songs. At 18, he became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War...
> [....]That’s why, for him, human evolution is the perfect topic to break down entrenched barriers between people in an increasingly polarized, politicized world.
> [.....]
> If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: *Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.*
> 
> What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, *among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?*
> [.....]
> [.....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution
> 
> 
> For two years, researchers from the Smithsonian traveled the country explaining the science of our shared origins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com


What church does potts belong to?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent design is only offensive to shoe wearing monkeys who have an inflated Ego on their shoulder telling them, "No one created you, you're special! You're just a by product of random chemical collusion over eons. In fact, even the very idea of you being "you" is just chemicals. Trust me on this. I know things"
> 
> You know how sometimes you assemble all of the materials to build a house, a far less complex structure than a living cell, and then a bolt of lightening strikes and - VIOLA! the house builds itself? Well, that's how evolutionists believe the first cells were formed. Stop laughing, they're serious about that
> 
> 
> 
> ID’iot creationism is offensive to thinking humans. I've never read of a single instance of your gods or anyone else's gods throwing down a bolt of lightning that built a house. Your silly storytime tale makes no sense.
Click to expand...


Yet you believe that a bolt of lighting ignited the Primordial Soup (Praise be to the G-d of the Glops) and made a living cell, amiright?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent design is only offensive to shoe wearing monkeys who have an inflated Ego on their shoulder telling them, "No one created you, you're special! You're just a by product of random chemical collusion over eons. In fact, even the very idea of you being "you" is just chemicals. Trust me on this. I know things"
> 
> You know how sometimes you assemble all of the materials to build a house, a far less complex structure than a living cell, and then a bolt of lightening strikes and - VIOLA! the house builds itself? Well, that's how evolutionists believe the first cells were formed. Stop laughing, they're serious about that
> 
> 
> 
> ID’iot creationism is offensive to thinking humans. I've never read of a single instance of your gods or anyone else's gods throwing down a bolt of lightning that built a house. Your silly storytime tale makes no sense.
Click to expand...


Right!  Exactly!!! There's your problem!  "creationism is offensive to thinking humans"

You nailed it!


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent design is only offensive to shoe wearing monkeys who have an inflated Ego on their shoulder telling them, "No one created you, you're special! You're just a by product of random chemical collusion over eons. In fact, even the very idea of you being "you" is just chemicals. Trust me on this. I know things"
> 
> You know how sometimes you assemble all of the materials to build a house, a far less complex structure than a living cell, and then a bolt of lightening strikes and - VIOLA! the house builds itself? Well, that's how evolutionists believe the first cells were formed. Stop laughing, they're serious about that
> 
> 
> 
> ID’iot creationism is offensive to thinking humans. I've never read of a single instance of your gods or anyone else's gods throwing down a bolt of lightning that built a house. Your silly storytime tale makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you believe that a bolt of lighting ignited the Primordial Soup (Praise be to the G-d of the Glops) and made a living cell, amiright?
Click to expand...

You be either the gods magically created all of existence 6,000 years ago, right?


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent design is only offensive to shoe wearing monkeys who have an inflated Ego on their shoulder telling them, "No one created you, you're special! You're just a by product of random chemical collusion over eons. In fact, even the very idea of you being "you" is just chemicals. Trust me on this. I know things"
> 
> You know how sometimes you assemble all of the materials to build a house, a far less complex structure than a living cell, and then a bolt of lightening strikes and - VIOLA! the house builds itself? Well, that's how evolutionists believe the first cells were formed. Stop laughing, they're serious about that
> 
> 
> 
> ID’iot creationism is offensive to thinking humans. I've never read of a single instance of your gods or anyone else's gods throwing down a bolt of lightning that built a house. Your silly storytime tale makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right!  Exactly!!! There's your problem!  "creationism is offensive to thinking humans"
> 
> You nailed it!
Click to expand...

Magic and supernaturalism is not an answer for anything.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent design is only offensive to shoe wearing monkeys who have an inflated Ego on their shoulder telling them, "No one created you, you're special! You're just a by product of random chemical collusion over eons. In fact, even the very idea of you being "you" is just chemicals. Trust me on this. I know things"
> 
> You know how sometimes you assemble all of the materials to build a house, a far less complex structure than a living cell, and then a bolt of lightening strikes and - VIOLA! the house builds itself? Well, that's how evolutionists believe the first cells were formed. Stop laughing, they're serious about that
> 
> 
> 
> ID’iot creationism is offensive to thinking humans. I've never read of a single instance of your gods or anyone else's gods throwing down a bolt of lightning that built a house. Your silly storytime tale makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you believe that a bolt of lighting ignited the Primordial Soup (Praise be to the G-d of the Glops) and made a living cell, amiright?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You be either the gods magically created all of existence 6,000 years ago, right?
Click to expand...

Thinking humans have severe limitations

It's good that you're flailing away so desperately,  might mean you're finally understanding


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The usual gods of the gap pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, there must have been first cells: therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = Settled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you find it too confusing, just screech out “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "too confusing" it's just physically soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unlikely as to be impossible
> 
> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the usual gods of the gaps pleading.
> 
> “It’s too complicated, therefore, “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't explain it, therefore evolution!
> 
> Sounds a lot like the missing science behind Climate Change.  Yeah we can't ever demonstrate any of it and the math assures that our Theory fail, but we have Consensus!
> 
> Did you know that single Cells are complex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, actually, the biological sciences have gone a long say toward confirming the mechanisms of evolution. Most of us began learning about the biological sciences as early as 7th grade.
> 
> How strange that the biological sciences have given us medicines that cure disease even when prayer and rattling bones aren’t as effective.
> 
> Can you identify where the theory of evolution fails? And, more importantly, can you post the ID’iot creationer “*General Theory of The Gawds Did It*”?
> 
> It would be swell if we could finally abandon knowledge and learning and just trust your Allah god to make everything peachy keen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Evolution was a concept stuck in my head at a young age and now that I've been researching things on my own, I see how totally WRONG it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is one vast, global conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Evolution is about as scientific as man-made gullible warming


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent design is only offensive to shoe wearing monkeys who have an inflated Ego on their shoulder telling them, "No one created you, you're special! You're just a by product of random chemical collusion over eons. In fact, even the very idea of you being "you" is just chemicals. Trust me on this. I know things"
> 
> You know how sometimes you assemble all of the materials to build a house, a far less complex structure than a living cell, and then a bolt of lightening strikes and - VIOLA! the house builds itself? Well, that's how evolutionists believe the first cells were formed. Stop laughing, they're serious about that
> 
> 
> 
> ID’iot creationism is offensive to thinking humans. I've never read of a single instance of your gods or anyone else's gods throwing down a bolt of lightning that built a house. Your silly storytime tale makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right!  Exactly!!! There's your problem!  "creationism is offensive to thinking humans"
> 
> You nailed it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Magic and supernaturalism is not an answer for anything.
Click to expand...


It's like expecting a termite to read the architectural plans of the house they're destroying


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> Evolution is about as scientific as man-made gullible warming


Evolution is the foundation of modern Biology you 12 IQ Church-head Cultist.

LANDSLIDE of EVIDENCE for it.

Wiki:

*Contents*

1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1 Genetics
1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry

2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 Vestigial structures
2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy

3 Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples from paleontology

4 Evidence from biogeography
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.3 Ring species
4.4 Specific examples from biogeography

5 Evidence from selection
5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
5.2 Invertebrates
5.3 Microbes
5.4 Plants and fungi
5.5 Vertebrates

6 Evidence from speciation
6.1 Fossils
6.2 Invertebrates
6.3 Plants
6.4 Vertebrates

7 Evidence from coloration
7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
7.2 Camouflage

8 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
9 See also
10 References
11 Sources
12 External links

`


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is about as scientific as man-made gullible warming
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is the foundation of modern Biology you 12 IQ Church-head Cultist.
> 
> LANDSLIDE of EVIDENCE for it.
> 
> Wiki:
> 
> *Contents*
> 
> 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 1.1 Genetics
> 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 
> 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
> 2.1 Atavisms
> 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
> 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
> 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
> 2.5 Vestigial structures
> 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
> 
> 3 Evidence from paleontology
> 3.1 Fossil record
> 3.2 Limitations
> 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
> 
> 4 Evidence from biogeography
> 4.1 Continental distribution
> 4.2 Island biogeography
> 4.3 Ring species
> 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
> 
> 5 Evidence from selection
> 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
> 5.2 Invertebrates
> 5.3 Microbes
> 5.4 Plants and fungi
> 5.5 Vertebrates
> 
> 6 Evidence from speciation
> 6.1 Fossils
> 6.2 Invertebrates
> 6.3 Plants
> 6.4 Vertebrates
> 
> 7 Evidence from coloration
> 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
> 7.2 Camouflage
> 
> 8 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
> 9 See also
> 10 References
> 11 Sources
> 12 External links
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Was that a joke? Evolution is the foundation of biology like man-made gullible warming is the foundation of astrophysics.


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is about as scientific as man-made gullible warming
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is the foundation of modern Biology you 12 IQ Church-head Cultist.
> 
> LANDSLIDE of EVIDENCE for it.
> 
> Wiki:
> 
> *Contents*
> 
> 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 1.1 Genetics
> 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 
> 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
> 2.1 Atavisms
> 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
> 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
> 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
> 2.5 Vestigial structures
> 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
> 
> 3 Evidence from paleontology
> 3.1 Fossil record
> 3.2 Limitations
> 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
> 
> 4 Evidence from biogeography
> 4.1 Continental distribution
> 4.2 Island biogeography
> 4.3 Ring species
> 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
> 
> 5 Evidence from selection
> 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
> 5.2 Invertebrates
> 5.3 Microbes
> 5.4 Plants and fungi
> 5.5 Vertebrates
> 
> 6 Evidence from speciation
> 6.1 Fossils
> 6.2 Invertebrates
> 6.3 Plants
> 6.4 Vertebrates
> 
> 7 Evidence from coloration
> 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
> 7.2 Camouflage
> 
> 8 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
> 9 See also
> 10 References
> 11 Sources
> 12 External links
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was that a joke? Evolution is the foundation of biology like man-made gullible warming is the foundation of astrophysics.
Click to expand...

*Have you EVER written a post 1/3 as long as your Sig? *
(It's even hard to find your bitsy posts somewhere above your bolded sig paragraphs)
*No, because you have No substance whatsoever.*

You can't debate anything.
You don't know anything you didn't learn in Sunday school or RW email chains.
You're a pathetic religious/mullah Troll.

`


`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dale Smith said:


> ..and you believe that intelligent design is far-fetched


Dale, you are incoherent. Are you suggesting we have the facts and are just studying the design? Or that "intelligent design" means a skydaddy just poofed life into existence? You don't even know. This is the science section, not the magic contrail section. Please think this stuff through before commenting.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> Evolution is the foundation of biology like man-made gullible warming is the foundation of astrophysics.


Sorry Francis, evolution is, indeed, the basis of all biology.


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The usual gods of the gap pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, there must have been first cells: therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = Settled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you find it too confusing, just screech out “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "too confusing" it's just physically soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unlikely as to be impossible
> 
> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the usual gods of the gaps pleading.
> 
> “It’s too complicated, therefore, “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't explain it, therefore evolution!
> 
> Sounds a lot like the missing science behind Climate Change.  Yeah we can't ever demonstrate any of it and the math assures that our Theory fail, but we have Consensus!
> 
> Did you know that single Cells are complex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, actually, the biological sciences have gone a long say toward confirming the mechanisms of evolution. Most of us began learning about the biological sciences as early as 7th grade.
> 
> How strange that the biological sciences have given us medicines that cure disease even when prayer and rattling bones aren’t as effective.
> 
> Can you identify where the theory of evolution fails? And, more importantly, can you post the ID’iot creationer “*General Theory of The Gawds Did It*”?
> 
> It would be swell if we could finally abandon knowledge and learning and just trust your Allah god to make everything peachy keen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Evolution was a concept stuck in my head at a young age and now that I've been researching things on my own, I see how totally WRONG it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is one vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is about as scientific as man-made gullible warming
Click to expand...

Your conspiracy theories about science are pretty typical for religious extremists.


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> I Refuted you FOUR times on Page 8, and you had no answer.
> Trying/TROLLING again REVEREND RINGTONE?
> Still No answer just a fake challenge.
> No meat.
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So Darwin proved that naturalism is true, eh?  When did he do that?  Link?*
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin, and a subsequent LANDSLIDE of EVIDENCE: Yes.
> 
> Wiki:
> 
> *Contents*
> 
> 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 1.1 Genetics
> 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 
> 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
> 2.1 Atavisms
> 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
> 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
> 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
> 2.5 Vestigial structures
> 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
> 
> 3 Evidence from paleontology
> 3.1 Fossil record
> 3.2 Limitations
> 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
> 
> 4 Evidence from biogeography
> 4.1 Continental distribution
> 4.2 Island biogeography
> 4.3 Ring species
> 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
> 
> 5 Evidence from selection
> 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
> 5.2 Invertebrates
> 5.3 Microbes
> 5.4 Plants and fungi
> 5.5 Vertebrates
> 
> 6 Evidence from speciation
> 6.1 Fossils
> 6.2 Invertebrates
> 6.3 Plants
> 6.4 Vertebrates
> 
> 7 Evidence from coloration
> 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
> 7.2 Camouflage
> 
> 8 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
> 9 See also
> 10 References
> 11 Sources
> 12 External links
Click to expand...


Trolling?!  I already told you, there's nothing you can teach me about the theory of evodelusion, and the post that you challenged was a response to another's about abiogenesis, which you gave a thumbs down because you either don't like the facts, as they certainly do not support abiogenesis, or because you think the facts are wrong.





__





						Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution
					

I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!  Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				






Prove me wrong.  Got link?


----------



## abu afak

*Reverend Ringtone either showed he's Stupid, or as Daily, presenting False challenges to the board.*



Ringtone said:


> Once again:
> 
> *Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true?  Link?*​


*Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.

Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
In this case 160 years and counting.
All good.
Asking how the man who most famously first observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.*


*See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.

Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.

`
ZERO.
Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.*


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> *Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true?  Link?*​*Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.
> 
> Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
> Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
> In this case 160 years and counting.
> All good.
> Asking how the man who most famously first observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.*
> 
> 
> *See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
> UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.
> 
> Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.
> 
> `
> ZERO.
> Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.*



Well, then, if you can't prove that naturalism is true, how do you know evodelusion is true?

_crickets chirping_


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> *Well, then, if you can't prove that naturalism is true, how do you know evodelusion is true?
> 
> crickets chirping*


Another nonsense/troll post.

Ringtone came here full of long philosophical if asinine/stupid posts.
Now (long ago) exposed as just another 'Crusader Frank'/Religious freak....
He a simple Troll.

LAUGHED off many message boards with his identical essay/gibberish. (It only worked on his own little blog)
A pathetic beaten and failed Liar for Jesus.
So he's become an 8 yr old (or is demented).

`


----------



## marvin martian

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> marvin martian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis happened somewhere.
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution shows how life started?
> 
> 
> 
> NO.
> But Creationists always lump that into evolution because it is NOT yet a fact.
> Evolution happened no matter how life 'sparked,' and a soon as it did.
> Some like to think that the existence of life also 'evolved' from naturally occurring, non-living, complex long chain molecules that have natural tendencies to form into structures that are very much like life.
> (I have TWO threads on that on THIS page) (WTF!)
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what did you mean by this
> _That does not solve NOR help discover how life started in the FIRST place._
> Evolution does neither of those. But that is justification for ignoring another theory? lol
> As i said, you have an astounding lack of logic. And apparently consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abiogenesis happened somewhere. We know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep. Even in the bible lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hah, true. But best to reject the magical horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the guy who believes a man can become a woman by putting on a wig.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the moron who trusts Putin over America. Just another russian troll, stinking up the joint.
Click to expand...


Don't worry, Biden has his #1 girl handling the whole Russian problem:


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The usual gods of the gap pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, there must have been first cells: therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = Settled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you find it too confusing, just screech out “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "too confusing" it's just physically soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unlikely as to be impossible
> 
> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the usual gods of the gaps pleading.
> 
> “It’s too complicated, therefore, “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't explain it, therefore evolution!
> 
> Sounds a lot like the missing science behind Climate Change.  Yeah we can't ever demonstrate any of it and the math assures that our Theory fail, but we have Consensus!
> 
> Did you know that single Cells are complex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, actually, the biological sciences have gone a long say toward confirming the mechanisms of evolution. Most of us began learning about the biological sciences as early as 7th grade.
> 
> How strange that the biological sciences have given us medicines that cure disease even when prayer and rattling bones aren’t as effective.
> 
> Can you identify where the theory of evolution fails? And, more importantly, can you post the ID’iot creationer “*General Theory of The Gawds Did It*”?
> 
> It would be swell if we could finally abandon knowledge and learning and just trust your Allah god to make everything peachy keen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Evolution was a concept stuck in my head at a young age and now that I've been researching things on my own, I see how totally WRONG it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is one vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is about as scientific as man-made gullible warming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your conspiracy theories about science are pretty typical for religious extremists.
Click to expand...

Whatever,  Dude. I have respect for actual science and scientists. I don't know why real scientists don't boot the Climate Change cult from campus


----------



## 22lcidw

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is about as scientific as man-made gullible warming
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is the foundation of modern Biology you 12 IQ Church-head Cultist.
> 
> LANDSLIDE of EVIDENCE for it.
> 
> Wiki:
> 
> *Contents*
> 
> 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 1.1 Genetics
> 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 
> 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
> 2.1 Atavisms
> 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
> 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
> 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
> 2.5 Vestigial structures
> 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
> 
> 3 Evidence from paleontology
> 3.1 Fossil record
> 3.2 Limitations
> 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
> 
> 4 Evidence from biogeography
> 4.1 Continental distribution
> 4.2 Island biogeography
> 4.3 Ring species
> 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
> 
> 5 Evidence from selection
> 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
> 5.2 Invertebrates
> 5.3 Microbes
> 5.4 Plants and fungi
> 5.5 Vertebrates
> 
> 6 Evidence from speciation
> 6.1 Fossils
> 6.2 Invertebrates
> 6.3 Plants
> 6.4 Vertebrates
> 
> 7 Evidence from coloration
> 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
> 7.2 Camouflage
> 
> 8 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
> 9 See also
> 10 References
> 11 Sources
> 12 External links
> 
> `
Click to expand...

You Progs look at the negative side on a science/religious issue. Its the living part that evangelicals at a much higher percentage seem to have better lives. People who follow religious rules seem to have a lot less headaches. So take it for what it is. It means more resources from taxes for the many flaws of the evolution crowd.


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The usual gods of the gap pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, there must have been first cells: therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = Settled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you find it too confusing, just screech out “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "too confusing" it's just physically soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unlikely as to be impossible
> 
> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the usual gods of the gaps pleading.
> 
> “It’s too complicated, therefore, “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't explain it, therefore evolution!
> 
> Sounds a lot like the missing science behind Climate Change.  Yeah we can't ever demonstrate any of it and the math assures that our Theory fail, but we have Consensus!
> 
> Did you know that single Cells are complex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, actually, the biological sciences have gone a long say toward confirming the mechanisms of evolution. Most of us began learning about the biological sciences as early as 7th grade.
> 
> How strange that the biological sciences have given us medicines that cure disease even when prayer and rattling bones aren’t as effective.
> 
> Can you identify where the theory of evolution fails? And, more importantly, can you post the ID’iot creationer “*General Theory of The Gawds Did It*”?
> 
> It would be swell if we could finally abandon knowledge and learning and just trust your Allah god to make everything peachy keen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Evolution was a concept stuck in my head at a young age and now that I've been researching things on my own, I see how totally WRONG it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is one vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is about as scientific as man-made gullible warming
Click to expand...

Good gawd but religious extremists are scary. That biological organisms evolve is just fact. You can deny that fact and launch into all the usual conspiracies but that won't change the facts. 

The theory of evolution has undergone rigorous review in the scientific community and remains the best, most coherent explanation of the observed development of life on Earth. The term ''theory'', in the context of science discussions, means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. Supporting the fact of evolution are the complimentary sciences of biology, paleontology, earth science, chemistry, etc. The theory of evolution explains the facts. The theory of evolution is no less valid than theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). On the fundamental, most basic issues of the theory of evolution, such as the _demonstrated facts_ of common descent and natural selection, there is no controversy within the scientific community. With near exclusivity, the only controversy emerges from fundamentalist Christianity


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The usual gods of the gap pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, there must have been first cells: therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = Settled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you find it too confusing, just screech out “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "too confusing" it's just physically soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unlikely as to be impossible
> 
> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the usual gods of the gaps pleading.
> 
> “It’s too complicated, therefore, “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't explain it, therefore evolution!
> 
> Sounds a lot like the missing science behind Climate Change.  Yeah we can't ever demonstrate any of it and the math assures that our Theory fail, but we have Consensus!
> 
> Did you know that single Cells are complex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, actually, the biological sciences have gone a long say toward confirming the mechanisms of evolution. Most of us began learning about the biological sciences as early as 7th grade.
> 
> How strange that the biological sciences have given us medicines that cure disease even when prayer and rattling bones aren’t as effective.
> 
> Can you identify where the theory of evolution fails? And, more importantly, can you post the ID’iot creationer “*General Theory of The Gawds Did It*”?
> 
> It would be swell if we could finally abandon knowledge and learning and just trust your Allah god to make everything peachy keen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Evolution was a concept stuck in my head at a young age and now that I've been researching things on my own, I see how totally WRONG it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is one vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is about as scientific as man-made gullible warming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good gawd but religious extremists are scary. That biological organisms evolve is just fact. You can deny that fact and launch into all the usual conspiracies but that won't change the facts.
> 
> The theory of evolution has undergone rigorous review in the scientific community and remains the best, most coherent explanation of the observed development of life on Earth. The term ''theory'', in the context of science discussions, means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. Supporting the fact of evolution are the complimentary sciences of biology, paleontology, earth science, chemistry, etc. The theory of evolution explains the facts. The theory of evolution is no less valid than theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). On the fundamental, most basic issues of the theory of evolution, such as the _demonstrated facts_ of common descent and natural selection, there is no controversy within the scientific community. With near exclusivity, the only controversy emerges from fundamentalist Christianity
Click to expand...

You're not even talking to me, just fighting windmills


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still today, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.
> 
> We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon chains are ubiquitous in nature, but cellular membranes are comprised of complex and precisely arranged molecular compounds, namely, phospholipids and proteins_. _In the first place, _the molecular precursors of phospholipids and proteins, _in and of themselves_,_ do not spontaneously combine in raw nature, i.e., outside living cells.
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that organic molecules that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.
> 
> Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the underlying chemical substance of organic molecules isn’t really what needs to be explained. We know that life is comprised of the stuff of the universe, and we know for a fact that a few amines and amino acids are naturally produced in outer space and in serpentinizing rocks on seafloors.
> 
> Under variously simulated environmental and atmospheric conditions in the laboratory, we have synthesized 31 amino acids, 17 of which are among the 20 of life, 6 amines, 12 peptides, the purines and pyrimidines of life, and the ribonucleotides cytosine and uracil. But here’s the caveat. Other than the few amines and amino acids produced in raw nature, we can’t produce the others outside the carefully controlled conditions of the laboratory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The usual gods of the gap pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, there must have been first cells: therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = Settled!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you find it too confusing, just screech out “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "too confusing" it's just physically soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unlikely as to be impossible
> 
> Cells are not Lego Blocks Dear, they are EXTREMELY Complex and must function PERFECTLY; that doesn't happen by random collisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the usual gods of the gaps pleading.
> 
> “It’s too complicated, therefore, “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't explain it, therefore evolution!
> 
> Sounds a lot like the missing science behind Climate Change.  Yeah we can't ever demonstrate any of it and the math assures that our Theory fail, but we have Consensus!
> 
> Did you know that single Cells are complex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, actually, the biological sciences have gone a long say toward confirming the mechanisms of evolution. Most of us began learning about the biological sciences as early as 7th grade.
> 
> How strange that the biological sciences have given us medicines that cure disease even when prayer and rattling bones aren’t as effective.
> 
> Can you identify where the theory of evolution fails? And, more importantly, can you post the ID’iot creationer “*General Theory of The Gawds Did It*”?
> 
> It would be swell if we could finally abandon knowledge and learning and just trust your Allah god to make everything peachy keen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Evolution was a concept stuck in my head at a young age and now that I've been researching things on my own, I see how totally WRONG it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is one vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is about as scientific as man-made gullible warming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good gawd but religious extremists are scary. That biological organisms evolve is just fact. You can deny that fact and launch into all the usual conspiracies but that won't change the facts.
> 
> The theory of evolution has undergone rigorous review in the scientific community and remains the best, most coherent explanation of the observed development of life on Earth. The term ''theory'', in the context of science discussions, means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. Supporting the fact of evolution are the complimentary sciences of biology, paleontology, earth science, chemistry, etc. The theory of evolution explains the facts. The theory of evolution is no less valid than theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). On the fundamental, most basic issues of the theory of evolution, such as the _demonstrated facts_ of common descent and natural selection, there is no controversy within the scientific community. With near exclusivity, the only controversy emerges from fundamentalist Christianity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not even talking to me, just fighting windmills
Click to expand...


I've found that hitting the fundies with facts tends to quiet em' down.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

marvin martian said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> marvin martian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis happened somewhere.
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution shows how life started?
> 
> 
> 
> NO.
> But Creationists always lump that into evolution because it is NOT yet a fact.
> Evolution happened no matter how life 'sparked,' and a soon as it did.
> Some like to think that the existence of life also 'evolved' from naturally occurring, non-living, complex long chain molecules that have natural tendencies to form into structures that are very much like life.
> (I have TWO threads on that on THIS page) (WTF!)
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what did you mean by this
> _That does not solve NOR help discover how life started in the FIRST place._
> Evolution does neither of those. But that is justification for ignoring another theory? lol
> As i said, you have an astounding lack of logic. And apparently consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abiogenesis happened somewhere. We know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep. Even in the bible lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hah, true. But best to reject the magical horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the guy who believes a man can become a woman by putting on a wig.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the moron who trusts Putin over America. Just another russian troll, stinking up the joint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry, Biden has his #1 girl handling the whole Russian problem:
Click to expand...

Aw, poor little cultist can't talk about anything else.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true?  Link?*​*Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.
> 
> Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
> Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
> In this case 160 years and counting.
> All good.
> Asking how the man who most famously first observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.*
> 
> 
> *See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
> UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.
> 
> Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.
> 
> `
> ZERO.
> Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then, if you can't prove that naturalism is true, how do you know evodelusion is true?
> 
> _crickets chirping_
Click to expand...

What part of naturalism is superceded by magic and supernaturalism?  If you presume that magic and supernaturalism are accurate descriptions / depictions of contingent reality and then proceed to "prove" magic and supernaturalism are true because you believe magic and supernaturalism are true you can certainly confirm your truths as absolute and unassailable. You just accept being cast as the village ID'iot creationer. Naturalism is undeniable except in the realm of magic and supernaturalism where the ID'iot creationer feels no obligation to support his claims no matter how outlandish. 

Why don't the ID'iot creationers supply one, just one, single event in all of human existence that has had demonstrably magical, supernatural causation?

Thanks.

Waiting.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is one vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist science has become that since the 1850s.  Today, most scientists are atheists when it was more believers as scientists before.  One could disagree back then and be heard.  Now, we'll get lying "consensus" science under atheist science like "climate change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious fear and superstition has given way to knowledge and understanding since the 1850’s. When we compare modern science to the bibles, we're left with the bibles being truly terrible as science texts.
> 
> Yes, science took a detour away from fear and superstition in the 1850's. Yes, you lament the advances of science as you apparently lament the loss of the primacy of the church in Medieval Europe. You really do bang away at the “before the 1850’s” in an attempt to disparage science.
> 
> Unfortunately for the hyper-religious, it was about that time when the objective sciences, learning and exploration began to blossom.
> 
> I can understand that you lament the relative ignorance that defined the time centuries ago but I’m afraid that fear and superstition has been a victim of learning and enlightenment.
Click to expand...


Your post shows you have not learned anything discussing things with me.  Only one Bible.

The rest is just your opinion that ToE, evolutionary thinking, and cosmology is right since the 1850s.  No need to mention the names of these wrong people.  Your opinion is based on the atheist religion.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is one vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist science has become that since the 1850s.  Today, most scientists are atheists when it was more believers as scientists before.  One could disagree back then and be heard.  Now, we'll get lying "consensus" science under atheist science like "climate change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious fear and superstition has given way to knowledge and understanding since the 1850’s. When we compare modern science to the bibles, we're left with the bibles being truly terrible as science texts.
> 
> Yes, science took a detour away from fear and superstition in the 1850's. Yes, you lament the advances of science as you apparently lament the loss of the primacy of the church in Medieval Europe. You really do bang away at the “before the 1850’s” in an attempt to disparage science.
> 
> Unfortunately for the hyper-religious, it was about that time when the objective sciences, learning and exploration began to blossom.
> 
> I can understand that you lament the relative ignorance that defined the time centuries ago but I’m afraid that fear and superstition has been a victim of learning and enlightenment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post shows you have not learned anything discussing things with me.  Only one Bible.
> 
> The rest is just your opinion that ToE, evolutionary thinking, and cosmology is right since the 1850s.  No need to mention the names of these wrong people.  Your opinion is based on the atheist religion.
Click to expand...

I get it.  Your feelings are hurt. 

Otherwise, what would I learn from you beside the dangers of religious indoctrination?

Living in abject fear of angry gods is a prescription for a maladjusted personality but worse is projecting those fears and prejudices on others.


----------



## Thoth001

abu afak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again:
> 
> Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true? Link?
> 
> 
> 
> *Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.
> 
> Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
> Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
> In this case 160 years and counting.
> All good.
> Asking how the man who most famously first Observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.
> 
> See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
> UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.
> 
> 
> Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.
> ZERO.
> Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.
> 
> `*
Click to expand...


The trust the general population has in what they perceive to be science is no less than idolatry and it's not even science.  At best, it is "consensus science," an oxymoron and not science at all and besides, there is no consensus.  It is what they self profess they are as "authoritative sources," a logical fallacy people commonly fall for which is Appeal to Authority.


----------



## abu afak

Thoth001 said:


> The trust the general population has in what they perceive to be science is no less than idolatry and it's not even science.  At best, it is "consensus science," an oxymoron and not science at all and besides, there is no consensus.  It is what they self profess they are as "authoritative sources," a logical fallacy people commonly fall for which is Appeal to Authority.


*Your claims are ALL bogus.*

1. You have/post ZERO Barometer of the general population. (as if THEY are the authority or the truth is a poll.)
If you mean MAGA Koch-heads, that's a whole nuther bag of tricks

2. It doesn't matter whether Evolution is consensus or not. (it of course is since the monkey trials)
It's the Basis of Modern biology.
Only politics and religion ENCROACH on the "public" (Deluded believers) ability to absorb settled facts.

*3. And lastly, you IDIOT, the 'appeal to authority fallacy' is NOT a fallacy if the expert IS a legitimate authority on the topic!*
IOW/Of course, if I cite albert Einstein on Relativity, that's an excellent source/citation.
If I cite Trump (or Kobe Bryant), THAT is when appeal to (an/any) authority becomes a Fallacy.
You MORON.

ie,
*".. It's important to note that this fallacy should NOT be used to dismiss the claims of Experts, or Scientific Consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.*​








						Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority
					

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.



					yourlogicalfallacyis.com
				




`


----------



## Thoth001

abu afak said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The trust the general population has in what they perceive to be science is no less than idolatry and it's not even science.  At best, it is "consensus science," an oxymoron and not science at all and besides, there is no consensus.  It is what they self profess they are as "authoritative sources," a logical fallacy people commonly fall for which is Appeal to Authority.
> 
> 
> 
> *Your claims are ALL bogus.*
> 
> 1. You have/post ZERO Barometer of the general population. (as if THEY are the authority or the truth is a poll.)
> If you mean MAGA Koch-heads, that's a whole nuther bag of tricks
> 
> 2. It doesn't matter whether Evolution is consensus or not. (it of course is since the monkey trials)
> It's the Basis of Modern biology.
> Only politics and religion ENCROACH on the "public" (Deluded believers) ability to absorb settled facts.
> 
> *3. And lastly, you IDIOT, the 'appeal to authority fallacy' is NOT a fallacy if the expert IS a legitimate authority on the topic!*
> IOW/Of course, if I cite albert Einstein on Relativity, that's an excellent source/citation.
> If I cite Trump (or Kobe Bryant), THAT is when appeal to (an/any) authority becomes a Fallacy.
> You MORON.
> 
> ie,
> *".. It's important to note that this fallacy should NOT be used to dismiss the claims of Experts, or Scientific Consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority
> 
> 
> You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.
> 
> 
> 
> yourlogicalfallacyis.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...


I will repeat it for you since you can't read very well.

The trust the general population has in what they perceive to be science is no less than idolatry and it's not even science.  At best, it is "consensus science," an oxymoron and not science at all and besides, there is no consensus.  It is what they self profess they are as "authoritative sources," a logical fallacy people commonly fall for which is Appeal to Authority.

Furthermore, belief in authority inevitably leads to allegiance to authority, which usually triggers the reflex of absolute spiritual obedience and paralysis of the mind.


----------



## abu afak

Thoth001 said:


> .....The trust the general population has in what they perceive to be science is no less than idolatry and it's not even science.  At best, it is "consensus science," an oxymoron and not science at all and besides, there is no consensus.  It is what they self profess they are as "authoritative sources," a logical fallacy people commonly fall for which is Appeal to Authority.
> 
> Furthermore, belief in authority inevitably leads to allegiance to authority, which usually triggers the reflex of absolute spiritual obedience and paralysis of the mind.


You provided NO evidence/Numbers of what the "general population" feels on any given scientific subject.
Everything that follows is therefore baseless.
You're a dishonest little idiot with a 12 IQ.
Not that the "general population's" opinion constitute truth. Truth is not a poll.
If 80% of people disagreed with Evo, it would STILL be true.
I debate truth, not polls.

Wanna try and post more goofy/fallacious posts on fallacies junior?

`


----------



## Thoth001

abu afak said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....The trust the general population has in what they perceive to be science is no less than idolatry and it's not even science.  At best, it is "consensus science," an oxymoron and not science at all and besides, there is no consensus.  It is what they self profess they are as "authoritative sources," a logical fallacy people commonly fall for which is Appeal to Authority.
> 
> Furthermore, belief in authority inevitably leads to allegiance to authority, which usually triggers the reflex of absolute spiritual obedience and paralysis of the mind.
> 
> 
> 
> You provided NO evidence/Numbers of what the "general population" feels on any given scientific subject.
> Everything that follows is therefore baseless.
> You're a dishonest little idiot with a 12 IQ.
> 
> Wanna try and post more goofy/fallacious posts on fallacies junior?
> 
> `
Click to expand...


It goes right over your head and through the woods.  And you are saying I am the one with the low IQ..The only thing you provide is bullying tactics. That don't make you look very smart at all. Because of that you must belittle other people because you think you make yourself look smarter.


----------



## Thoth001

abu afak said:


> So, NO answer to the meat:
> First, you're full of **** with the nebulous "general populations opinion.'
> Second, their opinion would not be evidence of truth
> In fact, YOU are making an "an appeal to authority/non legitimate authority/poll" FALLACY.
> LOFL
> The irony!
> 
> `



I only realize I am literally talking to an apeman.  Afterall, you are what you believe aren't you?


----------



## abu afak

So, Now TWO embarrassed posts in a row
Having no answer being debunked on all his Idiotic claims.
Namely:
First, you're full of **** with the nebulous "general populations opinion.'
Second, their opinion would not be evidence of truth
In fact, YOU are making an "an appeal to authority/non legitimate authority/poll" FALLACY.
LOFL
The irony!

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Thoth001 said:


> The trust the general population has in what they perceive to be science is no less than idolatry and it's not even science.


No, that's idiotic. People trust science because of the mountains of evidence of its great successes. That's why you are trolling on a quantum mechanical device instead of by carrier pigeon, ya dummy.


----------



## Thoth001

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The trust the general population has in what they perceive to be science is no less than idolatry and it's not even science.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's idiotic. People trust science because of the mountains of evidence of its great successes. That's why you are trolling on a quantum mechanical device instead of by carrier pigeon, ya dummy.
Click to expand...


The problem is much of science has become political and most of science is now funded by government grants and corporations. And if you trust government and big corporations  then you have a lot to learn.

Not a fan of Wiki but I know most of the sheeple are so here you go:









						Funding of science - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Thoth001 said:


> The problem is much of science has become political and most of science is now funded by government grants and corporations


Total nonsense. Another madeup, smoke and mirrors talking point designed to waste other people's time and to distract from the real reasons for your irrational doubt and denial.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> *Reverend Ringtone either showed he's Stupid, or as Daily, presenting False challenges to the board.*
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again:
> 
> *Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true?  Link?*​
> 
> 
> 
> *Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.
> 
> Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
> Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
> In this case 160 years and counting.
> All good.
> Asking how the man who most famously first observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.*
> 
> 
> *See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
> UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.
> 
> Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.
> 
> `
> ZERO.
> Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.*
Click to expand...

Lol

You can't even assemble the first cell with your Failed Theory!

Take the 2,000 proteins necessary to operate a single cell, I'll give you that well skip over the processes of assembling the molecules to make 2,000 separate proteins- and put them in a can of Campbell's Primordial Soup and shake it all up in a Home Depot paint mixer until cells start forming - OK?


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reverend Ringtone either showed he's Stupid, or as Daily, presenting False challenges to the board.*
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again:
> 
> *Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true?  Link?*​
> 
> 
> 
> *Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.
> 
> Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
> Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
> In this case 160 years and counting.
> All good.
> Asking how the man who most famously first observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.*
> 
> 
> *See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
> UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.
> 
> Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.
> 
> `
> ZERO.
> Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> 
> You can't even assemble the first cell with your Failed Theory!
> 
> Take the 2,000 proteins necessary to operate a single cell, I'll give you that well skip over the processes of assembling the molecules to make 2,000 separate proteins- and put them in a can of Campbell's Primordial Soup and shake it all up in a Home Depot paint mixer until cells start forming - OK?
Click to expand...

Like many religious extremists, you presume those atheist evilutionist scientists not yet producing life means it will never happen. What the religious extremists fail to understand is that nature has had billions of years of trial and error.

The continuing problem faced by the supernatural creationists is that their religious literature ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously _over the course of billions of years. Thus, we know with certainty that abiogenesis occurred, because, obviously life exists.

The real question becomes why would the gods make biological life so complex when supernatural creation has no need for such complexity?

Have the gods played a cruel joke on supernatural creationers?

On the other hand, the supernatural creationers can’t assemble even one of their gods with their failed appeals to magic and supernaturalism. The supernatural creationers can’t even even begin to assemble the hierarchy of supernatural creator gods assembled by the super-supernatural creator gods.

If you’re going to make a case for old men in long, flowing beards wearing nightgowns while living in the clouds, you haven’t made that case yet.









						The Origins of Life
					

A mineralogist believes he's discovered how life's early building blocks connected four billion years ago




					www.smithsonianmag.com


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> Lol
> You can't even assemble the first cell with your Failed Theory!
> 
> Take the 2,000 proteins necessary to operate a single cell, I'll give you that well skip over the processes of assembling the molecules to make 2,000 separate proteins- and put them in a can of Campbell's Primordial Soup and shake it all up in a Home Depot paint mixer until cells start forming - OK?


And you can't even show any Evidence of a more unlikely 'god' being poofed into existence and THEN doing same.
(then of course there's the issue of YOUR 'god' others of which/Witch you would not accept.)
I only believe in one Less god than you.
You don't believe thousands either, but you grew up Indoctrinated with one.
A Geo-cultural accident of birth... like all religions/gods.

If design was 'Intelligent' instead of trial and error mess it is, it would not have so many 'moving parts.'
Not only cells, but humans could be 'solid state' or only have a dozen 'moving parts.'
But no.
It's a mutated mess (many failed). All TRACEABLE to a single cell and mutated/expanded over time/billion years.
Nothing like 'genesis.' ZERO.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reverend Ringtone either showed he's Stupid, or as Daily, presenting False challenges to the board.*
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again:
> 
> *Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true?  Link?*​
> 
> 
> 
> *Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.
> 
> Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
> Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
> In this case 160 years and counting.
> All good.
> Asking how the man who most famously first observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.*
> 
> 
> *See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
> UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.
> 
> Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.
> 
> `
> ZERO.
> Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> 
> You can't even assemble the first cell with your Failed Theory!
> 
> Take the 2,000 proteins necessary to operate a single cell, I'll give you that well skip over the processes of assembling the molecules to make 2,000 separate proteins- and put them in a can of Campbell's Primordial Soup and shake it all up in a Home Depot paint mixer until cells start forming - OK?
Click to expand...

its as though you have never even bothered to try to think about how evolution works. Small increments. Functions and proteins added. Little by little. Over 10s and 100s of million of years. You sound very stupid to anyone who knows anything about evolution.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reverend Ringtone either showed he's Stupid, or as Daily, presenting False challenges to the board.*
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again:
> 
> *Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true?  Link?*​
> 
> 
> 
> *Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.
> 
> Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
> Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
> In this case 160 years and counting.
> All good.
> Asking how the man who most famously first observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.*
> 
> 
> *See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
> UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.
> 
> Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.
> 
> `
> ZERO.
> Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> 
> You can't even assemble the first cell with your Failed Theory!
> 
> Take the 2,000 proteins necessary to operate a single cell, I'll give you that well skip over the processes of assembling the molecules to make 2,000 separate proteins- and put them in a can of Campbell's Primordial Soup and shake it all up in a Home Depot paint mixer until cells start forming - OK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its as though you have never even bothered to try to think about how evolution works. Small increments. Functions and proteins added. Little by little. Over 10s and 100s of million of years. You sound very stupid to anyone who knows anything about evolution.
Click to expand...

You don't understand how a cell functions, you haven't the first clue at the complexity of it. You're stuck on some absurd Lego block version of cell structure. You think that the proteins ultimately involved in locomotion or digestion were functioning "normally" and just waiting to be jostled into the exact perfect place- again, like Lego blocks.


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> You don't understand how a cell functions, *you haven't the first clue at the complexity of it. *You're stuck on some absurd Lego block version of cell structure. You think that the proteins ultimately involved in locomotion or digestion were functioning "normally" and just waiting to be jostled into the exact perfect place- again, like Lego blocks.


Complexity is NOT an argument for god.
Complexity and mutations, Birth defects, messy reproduction, ambiguous sexual organs, etc, is all a MESS.
There's nothing Intelligent/immaculate about the way life is or has been.
Which is why you FAILED to answer me.

`


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is one vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist science has become that since the 1850s.  Today, most scientists are atheists when it was more believers as scientists before.  One could disagree back then and be heard.  Now, we'll get lying "consensus" science under atheist science like "climate change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious fear and superstition has given way to knowledge and understanding since the 1850’s. When we compare modern science to the bibles, we're left with the bibles being truly terrible as science texts.
> 
> Yes, science took a detour away from fear and superstition in the 1850's. Yes, you lament the advances of science as you apparently lament the loss of the primacy of the church in Medieval Europe. You really do bang away at the “before the 1850’s” in an attempt to disparage science.
> 
> Unfortunately for the hyper-religious, it was about that time when the objective sciences, learning and exploration began to blossom.
> 
> I can understand that you lament the relative ignorance that defined the time centuries ago but I’m afraid that fear and superstition has been a victim of learning and enlightenment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post shows you have not learned anything discussing things with me.  Only one Bible.
> 
> The rest is just your opinion that ToE, evolutionary thinking, and cosmology is right since the 1850s.  No need to mention the names of these wrong people.  Your opinion is based on the atheist religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get it.  Your feelings are hurt.
> 
> Otherwise, what would I learn from you beside the dangers of religious indoctrination?
> 
> Living in abject fear of angry gods is a prescription for a maladjusted personality but worse is projecting those fears and prejudices on others.
Click to expand...


To the contrary, it's practically all atheists who have a problem with Christianity.  Why?  I dunno.

My thinking is, "If I was an atheist," then why would I care about someone else's religion?  I would care more about my religion.

It's just that what Jesus taught and what is written about science and Genesis in the Bible cannot be contradicted.  For example, Professor Lawrence Kraus of Arizona State, in his debate with William Lane Craig, said he may be convinced of God if he rearranged the stars to spell, "I am here" in the sky told William Lane Craig.  That's a good argument.  However, about a week later, the SF Chronicle picked up an atheist in the San Francisco Bay Area saying that isn't good enough because the people on the other side wouldn't see it.  He made page 4 news after he said that all of the people living in the past, the present, and the future would have to see it.  Nothing short of that would do.  I thought God would have to prove it to them in hell.  I even posted about it here.  Yet, a few weeks later, I learned God had already prophecized how he would settle everything here on Earth before the end of the world with "every eye will see."  It was a supernatural answer for a supernatural challenge already made much before our time.  I said if I were an atheist, then that would convince me to change my mind.  The answer is too far out there and settles everything here on Earth.  Then the no abiogenesis and no aliens discovered would just add fuel to the big lie of atheism.

Furthermore, if the universe did not have a beginning wasn't ever found with the discovery of the CMB, then the argument about the universe being eternal would be what we believed.  That's what I was taught in school growing up.  The Christians wouldn't know how the universe started as explained in the Bible.  Then we would not have the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Christianity would be just another religion with claims, but no evidence.  Science would not back up the Bible.  However, the discovery of the CMB changed everything for Christianity and science even though the Bible isn't a science book.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> You don't understand how a cell functions, you haven't the first clue at the complexity of it.


But the scientists who discovered all of that DO know, and they will tell you what i have told you. So you're just another magical thinker without any tools in the toolbox, trying to steer the discussion away from your own lies and ignorance.

All that is left now is for you to declare victory. Then you will have completed the gauntlet of the magically thinking fraud. James Bond the 17th century shaman will be so jealous.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand how a cell functions, you haven't the first clue at the complexity of it.
> 
> 
> 
> But the scientists who discovered all of that DO know, and they will tell you what i have told you. So you're just another magical thinker without any tools in the toolbox, trying to steer the discussion away from your own lies and ignorance.
> 
> All that is left now is for you to declare victory. Then you will have completed the gauntlet of the magically thinking fraud. James Bond the 17th century shaman will be so jealous.
Click to expand...


LOL

Clueless

Totally, completely clueless.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Even if you had the necessary proteins and assembled them Frankenstein like, there is no assurance that the cell would function.  

The odds of _randomly _having the 2,000 cells drop into place are literally beyond astronomical!

There's a 700 million year gap between the formation of the Earth and appearance of the first cell. 

Let's assume that of all 2,000 separate proteins magically appeared after the Earth was formed are were resting comfortable in the Campbell's Primordial Soup.  In order for all 2,000 proteins to magically align to form the first living cell, they would have to be in the Home Depot style Primordial Soup Shaker can and bang together _randomly _over 300 times *EVERY SECOND *for all 700,000,000 years to beat the odds of the cell forming as supposed by the Evolutionaries.

That's just so random!


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> Even if you had the necessary proteins and assembled them Frankenstein like, there is no assurance that the cell would function.
> 
> The odds of _randomly _having the 2,000 cells drop into place are literally beyond astronomical!
> 
> There's a 700 million year gap between the formation of the Earth and appearance of the first cell.
> 
> Let's assume that of all 2,000 separate proteins magically appeared after the Earth was formed are were resting comfortable in the Campbell's Primordial Soup.  In order for all 2,000 proteins to magically align to form the first living cell, they would have to be in the Home Depot style Primordial Soup Shaker can and bang together _randomly _over 300 times *EVERY SECOND *for all 700,000,000 years to beat the odds of the cell forming as supposed by the Evolutionaries.
> 
> That's just so random!


Your constant fallacy is argument from Ignorance or Incredulity.
(aka Goddidit/God of the gaps)

"What are the Odds... out of how many chances" IS the question.

200 Billion Galaxies with 200 Billion planets each: How many planets, each with an infinite amount of ever changing micro-conditions.... over 15 Billion years, that the right (for that condition) molecules (that already have tendencies to form into some of these long chain molecules) will have life?

How many have life with a different amount of molecules per cell (or something) and are marveling at THEIR "perfect" 20, or 100.. or 500, or 5000?

You can't post good odds of winning unless you know how many horses there are in a race, or how many races/CHANCES.
In this case it's Any horse, winning Any Race, Any time, Anywhere in the universe.

You're not smart enough to consider math, probability, or logic.

`


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you had the necessary proteins and assembled them Frankenstein like, there is no assurance that the cell would function.
> 
> The odds of _randomly _having the 2,000 cells drop into place are literally beyond astronomical!
> 
> There's a 700 million year gap between the formation of the Earth and appearance of the first cell.
> 
> Let's assume that of all 2,000 separate proteins magically appeared after the Earth was formed are were resting comfortable in the Campbell's Primordial Soup.  In order for all 2,000 proteins to magically align to form the first living cell, they would have to be in the Home Depot style Primordial Soup Shaker can and bang together _randomly _over 300 times *EVERY SECOND *for all 700,000,000 years to beat the odds of the cell forming as supposed by the Evolutionaries.
> 
> That's just so random!
> 
> 
> 
> Your constant fallacy is argument from Ignorance or Incredulity.
> 
> "What are the Odds... out of how many chances" IS the question.
> 
> 200 Billion Galaxies with 200 Billion planets each: How many planets, each with an infinite amount of ever changing micro-conditions on each.... over 15 Billion years, that the right (for that condition) molecules (that already have tendencies to form into some of these long chain molecules) will have life?
> 
> How many have life with a different amount of molecules per cell (or something) and are marveling at THEIR "perfect" 20, or 100.. or 500, or 5000?
> 
> You can't post good odds of winning unless you know how many horses their are in a race/CHANCES.
> In this case it's Any horse, winning Any Race, Any time, Anywhere in the universe.
> 
> You're not smart enough to know math, probability, or logic.
> 
> `
Click to expand...


I just explained the math to you! 

I literally just laid it out for you!!!

Imagine if the exact 2,000 proteins in the Pool of Primordial Soup only had 1,000,000 year together?! 

They would have to _randomly _collide 250,000 times A SECOND  for them to beat the odds and _randomly _form a cell


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> I just explained the math to you!
> 
> I literally just laid it out for you!!!
> 
> Imagine if the exact 2,000 proteins in the Pool of Primordial Soup only had 1,000,000 year together?!
> 
> They would have to _randomly _collide 250,000 times A SECOND  for them to beat the odds and _randomly _form a cell


No No
I just explained the math to you.
*You can't post real odds without knowing the number of BOTH winners (multiple winners) and chances to win. (Gameover)*
And in this case tendencies of non-living molecules.
non-living replication happens with many less molecules and be all ready to go with a spark.
`


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just explained the math to you!
> 
> I literally just laid it out for you!!!
> 
> Imagine if the exact 2,000 proteins in the Pool of Primordial Soup only had 1,000,000 year together?!
> 
> They would have to _randomly _collide 250,000 times A SECOND  for them to beat the odds and _randomly _form a cell
> 
> 
> 
> No No
> I just explained the math to you.
> *You can't post real odds without knowing the number of BOTH winners (multiple winners) and chances to win. (Gameover)*
> And in this case tendencies of non-living molecules.
> non-living replication happens with many less molecules and be all ready to go with a spark.
> `
Click to expand...


This may seem impolite, but you're just fucking stupid. 

You have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand how a cell functions, you haven't the first clue at the complexity of it.
> 
> 
> 
> But the scientists who discovered all of that DO know, and they will tell you what i have told you. So you're just another magical thinker without any tools in the toolbox, trying to steer the discussion away from your own lies and ignorance.
> 
> All that is left now is for you to declare victory. Then you will have completed the gauntlet of the magically thinking fraud. James Bond the 17th century shaman will be so jealous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Clueless
> 
> Totally, completely clueless.
Click to expand...

You think the scientists that discovered and taught us everything we know about cells don't know how cells work? Nah, even you arent stupid enough today THAT. So you have your usual Francismoment where you fake lol and run away.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is one vast, global conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist science has become that since the 1850s.  Today, most scientists are atheists when it was more believers as scientists before.  One could disagree back then and be heard.  Now, we'll get lying "consensus" science under atheist science like "climate change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious fear and superstition has given way to knowledge and understanding since the 1850’s. When we compare modern science to the bibles, we're left with the bibles being truly terrible as science texts.
> 
> Yes, science took a detour away from fear and superstition in the 1850's. Yes, you lament the advances of science as you apparently lament the loss of the primacy of the church in Medieval Europe. You really do bang away at the “before the 1850’s” in an attempt to disparage science.
> 
> Unfortunately for the hyper-religious, it was about that time when the objective sciences, learning and exploration began to blossom.
> 
> I can understand that you lament the relative ignorance that defined the time centuries ago but I’m afraid that fear and superstition has been a victim of learning and enlightenment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post shows you have not learned anything discussing things with me.  Only one Bible.
> 
> The rest is just your opinion that ToE, evolutionary thinking, and cosmology is right since the 1850s.  No need to mention the names of these wrong people.  Your opinion is based on the atheist religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get it.  Your feelings are hurt.
> 
> Otherwise, what would I learn from you beside the dangers of religious indoctrination?
> 
> Living in abject fear of angry gods is a prescription for a maladjusted personality but worse is projecting those fears and prejudices on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To the contrary, it's practically all atheists who have a problem with Christianity.  Why?  I dunno.
> 
> My thinking is, "If I was an atheist," then why would I care about someone else's religion?  I would care more about my religion.
> 
> It's just that what Jesus taught and what is written about science and Genesis in the Bible cannot be contradicted.  For example, Professor Lawrence Kraus of Arizona State, in his debate with William Lane Craig, said he may be convinced of God if he rearranged the stars to spell, "I am here" in the sky told William Lane Craig.  That's a good argument.  However, about a week later, the SF Chronicle picked up an atheist in the San Francisco Bay Area saying that isn't good enough because the people on the other side wouldn't see it.  He made page 4 news after he said that all of the people living in the past, the present, and the future would have to see it.  Nothing short of that would do.  I thought God would have to prove it to them in hell.  I even posted about it here.  Yet, a few weeks later, I learned God had already prophecized how he would settle everything here on Earth before the end of the world with "every eye will see."  It was a supernatural answer for a supernatural challenge already made much before our time.  I said if I were an atheist, then that would convince me to change my mind.  The answer is too far out there and settles everything here on Earth.  Then the no abiogenesis and no aliens discovered would just add fuel to the big lie of atheism.
> 
> Furthermore, if the universe did not have a beginning wasn't ever found with the discovery of the CMB, then the argument about the universe being eternal would be what we believed.  That's what I was taught in school growing up.  The Christians wouldn't know how the universe started as explained in the Bible.  Then we would not have the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Christianity would be just another religion with claims, but no evidence.  Science would not back up the Bible.  However, the discovery of the CMB changed everything for Christianity and science even though the Bible isn't a science book.
Click to expand...

I suspect you know why the non-religious can have a problem with Christians. It’s a function of Christians attempting to force their beliefs on others whether it’s through trying to introduce their religion into the public school system or bringing heavy-handed proselytizing into the Science and Technology forums. The science-loathing, science-illiterate types who rattle off “evodelusionist” are cause for concern. To claim that biological organisms do not evolve is sheer idiosy and worse, suggests a complete lack of knowledge in one of the most basic facts of biology.

To claim that “what is written about science and Genesis in the Bible cannot be contradicted”, is nonsense. To suggest that the Genesis fable is a literal rendering of history is nonsense. This is another of the reasons why the non-religious can have a problem with Christians. Sorry, the planet is not flat, the planet is far older than 6,000 years and to worship gods who promote incestuous / familial relations is truly disturbing.

As to the rest of your proselytizing, I addressed that earlier.


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you had the necessary proteins and assembled them Frankenstein like, there is no assurance that the cell would function.
> 
> The odds of _randomly _having the 2,000 cells drop into place are literally beyond astronomical!
> 
> There's a 700 million year gap between the formation of the Earth and appearance of the first cell.
> 
> Let's assume that of all 2,000 separate proteins magically appeared after the Earth was formed are were resting comfortable in the Campbell's Primordial Soup.  In order for all 2,000 proteins to magically align to form the first living cell, they would have to be in the Home Depot style Primordial Soup Shaker can and bang together _randomly _over 300 times *EVERY SECOND *for all 700,000,000 years to beat the odds of the cell forming as supposed by the Evolutionaries.
> 
> That's just so random!
> 
> 
> 
> Your constant fallacy is argument from Ignorance or Incredulity.
> 
> "What are the Odds... out of how many chances" IS the question.
> 
> 200 Billion Galaxies with 200 Billion planets each: How many planets, each with an infinite amount of ever changing micro-conditions on each.... over 15 Billion years, that the right (for that condition) molecules (that already have tendencies to form into some of these long chain molecules) will have life?
> 
> How many have life with a different amount of molecules per cell (or something) and are marveling at THEIR "perfect" 20, or 100.. or 500, or 5000?
> 
> You can't post good odds of winning unless you know how many horses their are in a race/CHANCES.
> In this case it's Any horse, winning Any Race, Any time, Anywhere in the universe.
> 
> You're not smart enough to know math, probability, or logic.
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just explained the math to you!
> 
> I literally just laid it out for you!!!
> 
> Imagine if the exact 2,000 proteins in the Pool of Primordial Soup only had 1,000,000 year together?!
> 
> They would have to _randomly _collide 250,000 times A SECOND  for them to beat the odds and _randomly _form a cell
Click to expand...

You got that nonsense “math” from a creation ministry, right?


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> This may seem impolite, but you're just fucking stupid.
> 
> You have no idea what you're talking about.


This is pretty hopeless since you have an IQ in the 80s.
So I'll give an example or two.

The odds against winning Powerball are very high.: app 250,000,000 to 1.
But if 50 million people buy 5 tickets each, the odds are 1:1 someone will win.

*Now the chances of life might be very small in absolute terms, but unless you can tell me how many CHANCES/Entries there are/were to 'win' you CANNOT Tell me the odds are bad.*
Chances/Entries in this lottery being...
the Hourly, weekly, yearly, centurial, Millennial, Epochal, chances on Each of 200 Billion Planets (each with infinite microclimates), in EACH of 200 Billion galaxies over 15 Billion years.. OF.. naturally existing molecules with pre-existing proclivities. (such as were recently found on an asteroid. See my thread below somewhere.)

IOW/Again you need to know how many entries/chances life (ANY life) had to be able to tell me the odds.
And you cannot.
`


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But the scientists who discovered all of that DO know, and they will tell you what i have told you. So you're just another magical thinker without any tools in the toolbox, trying to steer the discussion away from your own lies and ignorance.
> 
> All that is left now is for you to declare victory. Then you will have completed the gauntlet of the magically thinking fraud. James Bond the 17th century shaman will be so jealous.



Why would I be jealous when it was a creationist who used microscopes and discovered the cells.  They weren't all the same as thought.  It showed further evidence for God.  Isn't that what you're craving for?  Well, here it is.  

In 2016, these scientists started mapping the human cells -- There's a Map for That—Human Cell Atlas.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I suspect you know why the non-religious can have a problem with Christians. It’s a function of Christians attempting to force their beliefs on others whether it’s through trying to introduce their religion into the public school system or bringing heavy-handed proselytizing into the Science and Technology forums. The science-loathing, science-illiterate types who rattle off “evodelusionist” are cause for concern. To claim that biological organisms do not evolve is sheer idiosy and worse, suggests a complete lack of knowledge in one of the most basic facts of biology.
> 
> To claim that “what is written about science and Genesis in the Bible cannot be contradicted”, is nonsense. To suggest that the Genesis fable is a literal rendering of history is nonsense. This is another of the reasons why the non-religious can have a problem with Christians. Sorry, the planet is not flat, the planet is far older than 6,000 years and to worship gods who promote incestuous / familial relations is truly disturbing.
> 
> As to the rest of your proselytizing, I addressed that earlier.



It sounds like YOU'RE the one proselytizing.  All I did was show how creationists were so plentiful before the 1850s in science due to Jesus' teachings and they were following him.

No one is trying to force their beliefs upon the other unless it's the atheist scientists.  They assume right off the bat there is no God without any evidence; It is due to their religion.

>>To claim that “what is written about science and Genesis in the Bible cannot be contradicted”, is nonsense.<<

If it wasn't true, then you and your side would've contradicted it and there would not be much debate over the science.  Instead, it is your side who made up evolution to contradict the creation science.  So now, it's a matter of who comes up with the evidence and contradiction.  Already, I have pointed out that evolution lacks origins and that fossils are the locations where the animals died.  It does not have anything to do with time chronology as atheist scientists "believe."  I can contradicted that with looking at the names of the layers.  They represent locations.  Without long time, evolution is dead.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Why would I be jealous when it was a creationist who used microscopes and discovered the cells.  They weren't all the same as thought.  It showed further evidence for God.  Isn't that what you're craving for?  Well, here it is.
> 
> In 2016, these scientists started mapping the human cells -- There's a Map for That—Human Cell Atlas.


That article is pure BS.

It is a RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS article from AnswersInGenesis. A PROSELYTIZATION/perversion of science.
(I got to "Psalms")
which has NOTHING to do with three scientists.

STOP PROSELYTIZING here.
Get the ****** out of here!

*There is NO GOD IN EVIDENCE and SCIENCE DEMANDS EVIDENCE.*

You are a sick indoctrinated TROLL posting RELIGION in this section.
You need to be removed from the section
This is the Science Section, NOT religion.
*OCD Insane.*

`


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect you know why the non-religious can have a problem with Christians. It’s a function of Christians attempting to force their beliefs on others whether it’s through trying to introduce their religion into the public school system or bringing heavy-handed proselytizing into the Science and Technology forums. The science-loathing, science-illiterate types who rattle off “evodelusionist” are cause for concern. To claim that biological organisms do not evolve is sheer idiosy and worse, suggests a complete lack of knowledge in one of the most basic facts of biology.
> 
> To claim that “what is written about science and Genesis in the Bible cannot be contradicted”, is nonsense. To suggest that the Genesis fable is a literal rendering of history is nonsense. This is another of the reasons why the non-religious can have a problem with Christians. Sorry, the planet is not flat, the planet is far older than 6,000 years and to worship gods who promote incestuous / familial relations is truly disturbing.
> 
> As to the rest of your proselytizing, I addressed that earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like YOU'RE the one proselytizing.  All I did was show how creationists were so plentiful before the 1850s in science due to Jesus' teachings and they were following him.
> 
> No one is trying to force their beliefs upon the other unless it's the atheist scientists.  They assume right off the bat there is no God without any evidence; It is due to their religion.
> 
> >>To claim that “what is written about science and Genesis in the Bible cannot be contradicted”, is nonsense.<<
> 
> If it wasn't true, then you and your side would've contradicted it and there would not be much debate over the science.  Instead, it is your side who made up evolution to contradict the creation science.  So now, it's a matter of who comes up with the evidence and contradiction.  Already, I have pointed out that evolution lacks origins and that fossils are the locations where the animals died.  It does not have anything to do with time chronology as atheist scientists "believe."  I can contradicted that with looking at the names of the layers.  They represent locations.  Without long time, evolution is dead.
Click to expand...


Before the 1850’s there were no “creationers”. It was simply a time that was largely pre-scientific. This is a perfect example of Christians attempting to force their religion on others. You attach your religion to those who were not necessarily Christian. That’s rather desperate.

It is ID’iot creationers who perpetuate revulsion of science. Literal belief in ancient and absurd fables are not really appropriate in the thread for grownups.

Your retreat to the “oh, poor me, 1850’s creationer” slogan is again hoping to shield yourself from uncomfortable realities. It’s a bitter pill for hyper-religious creationers to swallow but the 1850’s forward marked the beginning of analytic science investigation. Religiously imposed fear and ignorance was the victim of science and discovery. Sorry, but hoping to return to an age when the gods are presumed to be the cause of natural phenomenon such as thunder and lightning is not going to happen.

Your conspiracy theories regarding science and fossil discovery are rather routine reactions to science discovery. The notion that science “made up” evolution is another of the really sad, diseased ramblings of the hyper-religious.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be jealous when it was a creationist who used microscopes and discovered the cells.  They weren't all the same as thought.  It showed further evidence for God.  Isn't that what you're craving for?  Well, here it is.
> 
> In 2016, these scientists started mapping the human cells -- There's a Map for That—Human Cell Atlas.
> 
> 
> 
> That article is pure BS.
> 
> It is a RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS article from AnswersInGenesis. A PROSELYTIZATION/perversion of science.
> (I got to "Psalms")
> which has NOTHING to do with three scientists.
> 
> STOP PROSELYTIZING here.
> Get the ****** out of here!
> 
> *There is NO GOD IN EVIDENCE and SCIENCE DEMANDS EVIDENCE.*
> 
> You are a sick indoctrinated TROLL posting RELIGION in this section.
> You need to be removed from the section
> This is the Science Section, NOT religion.
> *OCD Insane.*
> 
> `
Click to expand...


No one wants you to convert to anything.  Instead, we want to see you burn and suffer forever.

You prolly got knocked down a level if hell is in levels.

AIG is a creation science website; It's quite good and accurate.  You got the religious atheist websites for evolution which are never right.  They're just theories instead of having experiments or presenting their finding and scientific logical explanation.

For example, there is no life on Mars.  That will be the finding and the creationists win again (evolution loses again).


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect you know why the non-religious can have a problem with Christians. It’s a function of Christians attempting to force their beliefs on others whether it’s through trying to introduce their religion into the public school system or bringing heavy-handed proselytizing into the Science and Technology forums. The science-loathing, science-illiterate types who rattle off “evodelusionist” are cause for concern. To claim that biological organisms do not evolve is sheer idiosy and worse, suggests a complete lack of knowledge in one of the most basic facts of biology.
> 
> To claim that “what is written about science and Genesis in the Bible cannot be contradicted”, is nonsense. To suggest that the Genesis fable is a literal rendering of history is nonsense. This is another of the reasons why the non-religious can have a problem with Christians. Sorry, the planet is not flat, the planet is far older than 6,000 years and to worship gods who promote incestuous / familial relations is truly disturbing.
> 
> As to the rest of your proselytizing, I addressed that earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like YOU'RE the one proselytizing.  All I did was show how creationists were so plentiful before the 1850s in science due to Jesus' teachings and they were following him.
> 
> No one is trying to force their beliefs upon the other unless it's the atheist scientists.  They assume right off the bat there is no God without any evidence; It is due to their religion.
> 
> >>To claim that “what is written about science and Genesis in the Bible cannot be contradicted”, is nonsense.<<
> 
> If it wasn't true, then you and your side would've contradicted it and there would not be much debate over the science.  Instead, it is your side who made up evolution to contradict the creation science.  So now, it's a matter of who comes up with the evidence and contradiction.  Already, I have pointed out that evolution lacks origins and that fossils are the locations where the animals died.  It does not have anything to do with time chronology as atheist scientists "believe."  I can contradicted that with looking at the names of the layers.  They represent locations.  Without long time, evolution is dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before the 1850’s there were no “creationers”. It was simply a time that was largely pre-scientific. This is a perfect example of Christians attempting to force their religion on others. You attach your religion to those who were not necessarily Christian. That’s rather desperate.
> 
> It is ID’iot creationers who perpetuate revulsion of science. Literal belief in ancient and absurd fables are not really appropriate in the thread for grownups.
> 
> Your retreat to the “oh, poor me, 1850’s creationer” slogan is again hoping to shield yourself from uncomfortable realities. It’s a bitter pill for hyper-religious creationers to swallow but the 1850’s forward marked the beginning of analytic science investigation. Religiously imposed fear and ignorance was the victim of science and discovery. Sorry, but hoping to return to an age when the gods are presumed to be the cause of natural phenomenon such as thunder and lightning is not going to happen.
> 
> Your conspiracy theories regarding science and fossil discovery are rather routine reactions to science discovery. The notion that science “made up” evolution is another of the really sad, diseased ramblings of the hyper-religious.
Click to expand...


Now, you're deliberately lying because your side is losing and losing badly.


----------



## james bond

AFrench2 said:


> Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.



Darwin didn't prove long, long, long time.  He just found a way to lie about it.  OW, one can still do radiocarbon dating and get a short time.  There are even soft tissue left with DNA inside these so-called long time fossils.  You can't get that with Darwin's timespans.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand how a cell functions, you haven't the first clue at the complexity of it.
> 
> 
> 
> But the scientists who discovered all of that DO know, and they will tell you what i have told you. So you're just another magical thinker without any tools in the toolbox, trying to steer the discussion away from your own lies and ignorance.
> 
> All that is left now is for you to declare victory. Then you will have completed the gauntlet of the magically thinking fraud. James Bond the 17th century shaman will be so jealous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Clueless
> 
> Totally, completely clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think the scientists that discovered and taught us everything we know about cells don't know how cells work? Nah, even you arent stupid enough today THAT. So you have your usual Francismoment where you fake lol and run away.
Click to expand...


You mean scientists like Darwin who believed that a cell was just a lump of protoplasm and a membrane?

I know the topic is beyond your comprehension so I won't bother trying to walk you through the math again.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be jealous when it was a creationist who used microscopes and discovered the cells.  They weren't all the same as thought.  It showed further evidence for God.  Isn't that what you're craving for?  Well, here it is.
> 
> In 2016, these scientists started mapping the human cells -- There's a Map for That—Human Cell Atlas.
> 
> 
> 
> That article is pure BS.
> 
> It is a RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS article from AnswersInGenesis. A PROSELYTIZATION/perversion of science.
> (I got to "Psalms")
> which has NOTHING to do with three scientists.
> 
> STOP PROSELYTIZING here.
> Get the ****** out of here!
> 
> *There is NO GOD IN EVIDENCE and SCIENCE DEMANDS EVIDENCE.*
> 
> You are a sick indoctrinated TROLL posting RELIGION in this section.
> You need to be removed from the section
> This is the Science Section, NOT religion.
> *OCD Insane.*
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one wants you to convert to anything.  Instead, we want to see you burn and suffer forever.
> 
> You prolly got knocked down a level if hell is in levels.
> 
> AIG is a creation science website; It's quite good and accurate.  You got the religious atheist websites for evolution which are never right.  They're just theories instead of having experiments or presenting their finding and scientific logical explanation.
> 
> For example, there is no life on Mars.  That will be the finding and the creationists win again (evolution loses again).
Click to expand...


How about when we discover coral, jellyfish and octopus on the water Moons in the outer solar system?


----------



## abu afak

> james bond said:
> No one wants you to convert to anything. Instead, we want to see you burn and suffer forever.
> You prolly got knocked down a level if hell is in levels.
> AIG is a creation science website; It's quite good and accurate. You got the religious atheist websites for evolution which are never right. They're just theories instead of having experiments or presenting their finding and scientific logical explanation.
> For example, there is no life on Mars. That will be the finding and the creationists win
> again (evolution loses again).



*"Creation science" is NOT science, it is AGAIN, Proselytizing.
Creationism is a RELIGIOUS Idea, NOT a scientific one.
"Hell" is also a Religious idea with NO Evidence.*

You SICK MUTHA, you can't carry on a Coherent conversation without Injecting RELIGION.
You need to be removed from USMB as Insane/incompetent.
(and let the other biblical asylum inmates to use the computer for learning purpose.)
`


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect you know why the non-religious can have a problem with Christians. It’s a function of Christians attempting to force their beliefs on others whether it’s through trying to introduce their religion into the public school system or bringing heavy-handed proselytizing into the Science and Technology forums. The science-loathing, science-illiterate types who rattle off “evodelusionist” are cause for concern. To claim that biological organisms do not evolve is sheer idiosy and worse, suggests a complete lack of knowledge in one of the most basic facts of biology.
> 
> To claim that “what is written about science and Genesis in the Bible cannot be contradicted”, is nonsense. To suggest that the Genesis fable is a literal rendering of history is nonsense. This is another of the reasons why the non-religious can have a problem with Christians. Sorry, the planet is not flat, the planet is far older than 6,000 years and to worship gods who promote incestuous / familial relations is truly disturbing.
> 
> As to the rest of your proselytizing, I addressed that earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like YOU'RE the one proselytizing.  All I did was show how creationists were so plentiful before the 1850s in science due to Jesus' teachings and they were following him.
> 
> No one is trying to force their beliefs upon the other unless it's the atheist scientists.  They assume right off the bat there is no God without any evidence; It is due to their religion.
> 
> >>To claim that “what is written about science and Genesis in the Bible cannot be contradicted”, is nonsense.<<
> 
> If it wasn't true, then you and your side would've contradicted it and there would not be much debate over the science.  Instead, it is your side who made up evolution to contradict the creation science.  So now, it's a matter of who comes up with the evidence and contradiction.  Already, I have pointed out that evolution lacks origins and that fossils are the locations where the animals died.  It does not have anything to do with time chronology as atheist scientists "believe."  I can contradicted that with looking at the names of the layers.  They represent locations.  Without long time, evolution is dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before the 1850’s there were no “creationers”. It was simply a time that was largely pre-scientific. This is a perfect example of Christians attempting to force their religion on others. You attach your religion to those who were not necessarily Christian. That’s rather desperate.
> 
> It is ID’iot creationers who perpetuate revulsion of science. Literal belief in ancient and absurd fables are not really appropriate in the thread for grownups.
> 
> Your retreat to the “oh, poor me, 1850’s creationer” slogan is again hoping to shield yourself from uncomfortable realities. It’s a bitter pill for hyper-religious creationers to swallow but the 1850’s forward marked the beginning of analytic science investigation. Religiously imposed fear and ignorance was the victim of science and discovery. Sorry, but hoping to return to an age when the gods are presumed to be the cause of natural phenomenon such as thunder and lightning is not going to happen.
> 
> Your conspiracy theories regarding science and fossil discovery are rather routine reactions to science discovery. The notion that science “made up” evolution is another of the really sad, diseased ramblings of the hyper-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, you're deliberately lying because your side is losing and losing badly.
Click to expand...


Now, you’re deliberately whining because the religious extremist side has nothing but whining to soothe their hurt feelings.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be jealous when it was a creationist who used microscopes and discovered the cells.  They weren't all the same as thought.  It showed further evidence for God.  Isn't that what you're craving for?  Well, here it is.
> 
> In 2016, these scientists started mapping the human cells -- There's a Map for That—Human Cell Atlas.
> 
> 
> 
> That article is pure BS.
> 
> It is a RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS article from AnswersInGenesis. A PROSELYTIZATION/perversion of science.
> (I got to "Psalms")
> which has NOTHING to do with three scientists.
> 
> STOP PROSELYTIZING here.
> Get the ****** out of here!
> 
> *There is NO GOD IN EVIDENCE and SCIENCE DEMANDS EVIDENCE.*
> 
> You are a sick indoctrinated TROLL posting RELIGION in this section.
> You need to be removed from the section
> This is the Science Section, NOT religion.
> *OCD Insane.*
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one wants you to convert to anything.  Instead, we want to see you burn and suffer forever.
> 
> You prolly got knocked down a level if hell is in levels.
> 
> AIG is a creation science website; It's quite good and accurate.  You got the religious atheist websites for evolution which are never right.  They're just theories instead of having experiments or presenting their finding and scientific logical explanation.
> 
> For example, there is no life on Mars.  That will be the finding and the creationists win again (evolution loses again).
Click to expand...


“...we want to see you burn and suffer forever.”

Of course you do dear. Your comment typifies the angry, vindictive religious extremist who is consumed by hate and fear. Too bad that we have moved on from the times when you lovely, lovely folks could burn people at the stake for suggesting the planet is not flat.

lovely, lovely folks


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be jealous when it was a creationist who used microscopes and discovered the cells.  They weren't all the same as thought.  It showed further evidence for God.  Isn't that what you're craving for?  Well, here it is.
> 
> In 2016, these scientists started mapping the human cells -- There's a Map for That—Human Cell Atlas.
> 
> 
> 
> That article is pure BS.
> 
> It is a RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS article from AnswersInGenesis. A PROSELYTIZATION/perversion of science.
> (I got to "Psalms")
> which has NOTHING to do with three scientists.
> 
> STOP PROSELYTIZING here.
> Get the ****** out of here!
> 
> *There is NO GOD IN EVIDENCE and SCIENCE DEMANDS EVIDENCE.*
> 
> You are a sick indoctrinated TROLL posting RELIGION in this section.
> You need to be removed from the section
> This is the Science Section, NOT religion.
> *OCD Insane.*
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one wants you to convert to anything.  Instead, we want to see you burn and suffer forever.
> 
> You prolly got knocked down a level if hell is in levels.
> 
> AIG is a creation science website; It's quite good and accurate.  You got the religious atheist websites for evolution which are never right.  They're just theories instead of having experiments or presenting their finding and scientific logical explanation.
> 
> For example, there is no life on Mars.  That will be the finding and the creationists win again (evolution loses again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about when we discover coral, jellyfish and octopus on the water Moons in the outer solar system?
Click to expand...



I sssume that when you use the term “we”, you man scientists and engineers, not wackadoodles from creation ministries. Religious extremists typically rail against science because they are terrified by it. The discovery of life elsewhere in the cosmos and even abiogenesis terrify them because eventual confirmation of the process of abiogenesis and/or discovery of life beyond earth is utterly devastating to the religious articles. Life and “creation” are very earthly concepts to Christianity and the discovery of life off of this planet would cause some creationers heads to explode. This is why we see the frantic claims from creationists that abiogenesis will never be confirmed and that “aliens” cannot exist.

The religious extremists demand that because not every answer to every question is known, it must be "the gawds did it" when we have no reason to believe the gawds did anything. 

They may choose to remain ignorant and never explore beyond the bibles but that would require humanity never proceed beyond ancient fears and superstitions


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be jealous when it was a creationist who used microscopes and discovered the cells.  They weren't all the same as thought.  It showed further evidence for God.  Isn't that what you're craving for?  Well, here it is.
> 
> In 2016, these scientists started mapping the human cells -- There's a Map for That—Human Cell Atlas.
> 
> 
> 
> That article is pure BS.
> 
> It is a RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS article from AnswersInGenesis. A PROSELYTIZATION/perversion of science.
> (I got to "Psalms")
> which has NOTHING to do with three scientists.
> 
> STOP PROSELYTIZING here.
> Get the ****** out of here!
> 
> *There is NO GOD IN EVIDENCE and SCIENCE DEMANDS EVIDENCE.*
> 
> You are a sick indoctrinated TROLL posting RELIGION in this section.
> You need to be removed from the section
> This is the Science Section, NOT religion.
> *OCD Insane.*
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one wants you to convert to anything.  Instead, we want to see you burn and suffer forever.
> 
> You prolly got knocked down a level if hell is in levels.
> 
> AIG is a creation science website; It's quite good and accurate.  You got the religious atheist websites for evolution which are never right.  They're just theories instead of having experiments or presenting their finding and scientific logical explanation.
> 
> For example, there is no life on Mars.  That will be the finding and the creationists win again (evolution loses again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about when we discover coral, jellyfish and octopus on the water Moons in the outer solar system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I sssume that when you use the term “we”, you man scientists and engineers, not wackadoodles from creation ministries. Religious extremists typically rail against science because they are terrified by it. The discovery of life elsewhere in the cosmos and even abiogenesis terrify them because eventual confirmation of the process of abiogenesis and/or discovery of life beyond earth is utterly devastating to the religious articles. Life and “creation” are very earthly concepts to Christianity and the discovery of life off of this planet would cause some creationers heads to explode. This is why we see the frantic claims from creationists that abiogenesis will never be confirmed and that “aliens” cannot exist.
> 
> The religious extremists demand that because not every answer to every question is known, it must be "the gawds did it" when we have no reason to believe the gawds did anything.
> 
> They may choose to remain ignorant and never explore beyond the bibles but that would require humanity never proceed beyond ancient fears and superstitions
Click to expand...


It was hard to read between all the froth an spittle, and the little I managed to understand did NOT address my post - at all


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be jealous when it was a creationist who used microscopes and discovered the cells.  They weren't all the same as thought.  It showed further evidence for God.  Isn't that what you're craving for?  Well, here it is.
> 
> In 2016, these scientists started mapping the human cells -- There's a Map for That—Human Cell Atlas.
> 
> 
> 
> That article is pure BS.
> 
> It is a RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS article from AnswersInGenesis. A PROSELYTIZATION/perversion of science.
> (I got to "Psalms")
> which has NOTHING to do with three scientists.
> 
> STOP PROSELYTIZING here.
> Get the ****** out of here!
> 
> *There is NO GOD IN EVIDENCE and SCIENCE DEMANDS EVIDENCE.*
> 
> You are a sick indoctrinated TROLL posting RELIGION in this section.
> You need to be removed from the section
> This is the Science Section, NOT religion.
> *OCD Insane.*
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one wants you to convert to anything.  Instead, we want to see you burn and suffer forever.
> 
> You prolly got knocked down a level if hell is in levels.
> 
> AIG is a creation science website; It's quite good and accurate.  You got the religious atheist websites for evolution which are never right.  They're just theories instead of having experiments or presenting their finding and scientific logical explanation.
> 
> For example, there is no life on Mars.  That will be the finding and the creationists win again (evolution loses again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about when we discover coral, jellyfish and octopus on the water Moons in the outer solar system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I sssume that when you use the term “we”, you man scientists and engineers, not wackadoodles from creation ministries. Religious extremists typically rail against science because they are terrified by it. The discovery of life elsewhere in the cosmos and even abiogenesis terrify them because eventual confirmation of the process of abiogenesis and/or discovery of life beyond earth is utterly devastating to the religious articles. Life and “creation” are very earthly concepts to Christianity and the discovery of life off of this planet would cause some creationers heads to explode. This is why we see the frantic claims from creationists that abiogenesis will never be confirmed and that “aliens” cannot exist.
> 
> The religious extremists demand that because not every answer to every question is known, it must be "the gawds did it" when we have no reason to believe the gawds did anything.
> 
> They may choose to remain ignorant and never explore beyond the bibles but that would require humanity never proceed beyond ancient fears and superstitions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was hard to read between all the froth an spittle, and the little I managed to understand did NOT address my post - at all
Click to expand...

My comment addressed your post. You didn’t know how to respond.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> No one wants you to convert to anything. Instead, we want to see you burn and suffer forever.
> You prolly got knocked down a level if hell is in levels.
> AIG is a creation science website; It's quite good and accurate. You got the religious atheist websites for evolution which are never right. They're just theories instead of having experiments or presenting their finding and scientific logical explanation.
> For example, there is no life on Mars. That will be the finding and the creationists win
> again (evolution loses again).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Creation science" is NOT science, it is AGAIN, Proselytizing.
> Creationism is a RELIGIOUS Idea, NOT a scientific one.
> "Hell" is also a Religious idea with NO Evidence.*
> 
> You SICK MUTHA, you can't carry on a Coherent conversation without Injecting RELIGION.
> You need to be removed from USMB as Insane/incompetent.
> (and let the other biblical asylum inmates to use the computer for learning purpose.)
> `
Click to expand...


Personally, I can't see you converting.  Why not just stay in your own religion of atheism?  Believe in nothing.  I'll still discuss science with you haha.

Such as evolution is kaka


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be jealous when it was a creationist who used microscopes and discovered the cells.  They weren't all the same as thought.  It showed further evidence for God.  Isn't that what you're craving for?  Well, here it is.
> 
> In 2016, these scientists started mapping the human cells -- There's a Map for That—Human Cell Atlas.
> 
> 
> 
> That article is pure BS.
> 
> It is a RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS article from AnswersInGenesis. A PROSELYTIZATION/perversion of science.
> (I got to "Psalms")
> which has NOTHING to do with three scientists.
> 
> STOP PROSELYTIZING here.
> Get the ****** out of here!
> 
> *There is NO GOD IN EVIDENCE and SCIENCE DEMANDS EVIDENCE.*
> 
> You are a sick indoctrinated TROLL posting RELIGION in this section.
> You need to be removed from the section
> This is the Science Section, NOT religion.
> *OCD Insane.*
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one wants you to convert to anything.  Instead, we want to see you burn and suffer forever.
> 
> You prolly got knocked down a level if hell is in levels.
> 
> AIG is a creation science website; It's quite good and accurate.  You got the religious atheist websites for evolution which are never right.  They're just theories instead of having experiments or presenting their finding and scientific logical explanation.
> 
> For example, there is no life on Mars.  That will be the finding and the creationists win again (evolution loses again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “...we want to see you burn and suffer forever.”
> 
> Of course you do dear. Your comment typifies the angry, vindictive religious extremist who is consumed by hate and fear. Too bad that we have moved on from the times when you lovely, lovely folks could burn people at the stake for suggesting the planet is not flat.
> 
> lovely, lovely folks
Click to expand...


He's the one who believes I am trying to convert him.  I don't want to convert you nor him because you'll never discover the truth for yourselves.

Back to science.  Why can't evolution happen?  Even if single cells just existed, then they cannot become cells that have to mate for reproduction.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be jealous when it was a creationist who used microscopes and discovered the cells.  They weren't all the same as thought.  It showed further evidence for God.  Isn't that what you're craving for?  Well, here it is.
> 
> In 2016, these scientists started mapping the human cells -- There's a Map for That—Human Cell Atlas.
> 
> 
> 
> That article is pure BS.
> 
> It is a RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS article from AnswersInGenesis. A PROSELYTIZATION/perversion of science.
> (I got to "Psalms")
> which has NOTHING to do with three scientists.
> 
> STOP PROSELYTIZING here.
> Get the ****** out of here!
> 
> *There is NO GOD IN EVIDENCE and SCIENCE DEMANDS EVIDENCE.*
> 
> You are a sick indoctrinated TROLL posting RELIGION in this section.
> You need to be removed from the section
> This is the Science Section, NOT religion.
> *OCD Insane.*
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one wants you to convert to anything.  Instead, we want to see you burn and suffer forever.
> 
> You prolly got knocked down a level if hell is in levels.
> 
> AIG is a creation science website; It's quite good and accurate.  You got the religious atheist websites for evolution which are never right.  They're just theories instead of having experiments or presenting their finding and scientific logical explanation.
> 
> For example, there is no life on Mars.  That will be the finding and the creationists win again (evolution loses again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “...we want to see you burn and suffer forever.”
> 
> Of course you do dear. Your comment typifies the angry, vindictive religious extremist who is consumed by hate and fear. Too bad that we have moved on from the times when you lovely, lovely folks could burn people at the stake for suggesting the planet is not flat.
> 
> lovely, lovely folks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's the one who believes I am trying to convert him.  I don't want to convert you nor him because you'll never discover the truth for yourselves.
> 
> Back to science.  Why can't evolution happen?  Even if single cells just existed, then they cannot become cells that have to mate for reproduction.
Click to expand...

Pretty typical for religioners of all stripes and degrees of ignorance to insist they are the arbiters of “twoof” from their versions of gods.

You can’t go back to science if you were never there to learn it. Asexual reproduction is not uncommon.

Other than magical tales and nonsense claims, tell us about your gods inventing that flat earth thing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be jealous when it was a creationist who used microscopes and discovered the cells.  They weren't all the same as thought.  It showed further evidence for God.  Isn't that what you're craving for?  Well, here it is.
> 
> In 2016, these scientists started mapping the human cells -- There's a Map for That—Human Cell Atlas.
> 
> 
> 
> That article is pure BS.
> 
> It is a RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS article from AnswersInGenesis. A PROSELYTIZATION/perversion of science.
> (I got to "Psalms")
> which has NOTHING to do with three scientists.
> 
> STOP PROSELYTIZING here.
> Get the ****** out of here!
> 
> *There is NO GOD IN EVIDENCE and SCIENCE DEMANDS EVIDENCE.*
> 
> You are a sick indoctrinated TROLL posting RELIGION in this section.
> You need to be removed from the section
> This is the Science Section, NOT religion.
> *OCD Insane.*
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one wants you to convert to anything.  Instead, we want to see you burn and suffer forever.
> 
> You prolly got knocked down a level if hell is in levels.
> 
> AIG is a creation science website; It's quite good and accurate.  You got the religious atheist websites for evolution which are never right.  They're just theories instead of having experiments or presenting their finding and scientific logical explanation.
> 
> For example, there is no life on Mars.  That will be the finding and the creationists win again (evolution loses again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about when we discover coral, jellyfish and octopus on the water Moons in the outer solar system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I sssume that when you use the term “we”, you man scientists and engineers, not wackadoodles from creation ministries. Religious extremists typically rail against science because they are terrified by it. The discovery of life elsewhere in the cosmos and even abiogenesis terrify them because eventual confirmation of the process of abiogenesis and/or discovery of life beyond earth is utterly devastating to the religious articles. Life and “creation” are very earthly concepts to Christianity and the discovery of life off of this planet would cause some creationers heads to explode. This is why we see the frantic claims from creationists that abiogenesis will never be confirmed and that “aliens” cannot exist.
> 
> The religious extremists demand that because not every answer to every question is known, it must be "the gawds did it" when we have no reason to believe the gawds did anything.
> 
> They may choose to remain ignorant and never explore beyond the bibles but that would require humanity never proceed beyond ancient fears and superstitions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was hard to read between all the froth an spittle, and the little I managed to understand did NOT address my post - at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My comment addressed your post. You didn’t know how to respond.
Click to expand...

I gave you math and science, you responded like a Jihadists and, ironically, accused ME of being a religious extremists.

You evolutionists have canned responses and have yet to convince me that you understand how a cell functions


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be jealous when it was a creationist who used microscopes and discovered the cells.  They weren't all the same as thought.  It showed further evidence for God.  Isn't that what you're craving for?  Well, here it is.
> 
> In 2016, these scientists started mapping the human cells -- There's a Map for That—Human Cell Atlas.
> 
> 
> 
> That article is pure BS.
> 
> It is a RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS article from AnswersInGenesis. A PROSELYTIZATION/perversion of science.
> (I got to "Psalms")
> which has NOTHING to do with three scientists.
> 
> STOP PROSELYTIZING here.
> Get the ****** out of here!
> 
> *There is NO GOD IN EVIDENCE and SCIENCE DEMANDS EVIDENCE.*
> 
> You are a sick indoctrinated TROLL posting RELIGION in this section.
> You need to be removed from the section
> This is the Science Section, NOT religion.
> *OCD Insane.*
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one wants you to convert to anything.  Instead, we want to see you burn and suffer forever.
> 
> You prolly got knocked down a level if hell is in levels.
> 
> AIG is a creation science website; It's quite good and accurate.  You got the religious atheist websites for evolution which are never right.  They're just theories instead of having experiments or presenting their finding and scientific logical explanation.
> 
> For example, there is no life on Mars.  That will be the finding and the creationists win again (evolution loses again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “...we want to see you burn and suffer forever.”
> 
> Of course you do dear. Your comment typifies the angry, vindictive religious extremist who is consumed by hate and fear. Too bad that we have moved on from the times when you lovely, lovely folks could burn people at the stake for suggesting the planet is not flat.
> 
> lovely, lovely folks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's the one who believes I am trying to convert him.  I don't want to convert you nor him because you'll never discover the truth for yourselves.
> 
> Back to science.  Why can't evolution happen?  Even if single cells just existed, then they cannot become cells that have to mate for reproduction.
Click to expand...

I never claimed you were trying to convert anyone. I wrote you were proselytizing. You’re a salesman. Instead of hawking used chevy’s, you’re hawking your version of the gods.


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be jealous when it was a creationist who used microscopes and discovered the cells.  They weren't all the same as thought.  It showed further evidence for God.  Isn't that what you're craving for?  Well, here it is.
> 
> In 2016, these scientists started mapping the human cells -- There's a Map for That—Human Cell Atlas.
> 
> 
> 
> That article is pure BS.
> 
> It is a RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS article from AnswersInGenesis. A PROSELYTIZATION/perversion of science.
> (I got to "Psalms")
> which has NOTHING to do with three scientists.
> 
> STOP PROSELYTIZING here.
> Get the ****** out of here!
> 
> *There is NO GOD IN EVIDENCE and SCIENCE DEMANDS EVIDENCE.*
> 
> You are a sick indoctrinated TROLL posting RELIGION in this section.
> You need to be removed from the section
> This is the Science Section, NOT religion.
> *OCD Insane.*
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one wants you to convert to anything.  Instead, we want to see you burn and suffer forever.
> 
> You prolly got knocked down a level if hell is in levels.
> 
> AIG is a creation science website; It's quite good and accurate.  You got the religious atheist websites for evolution which are never right.  They're just theories instead of having experiments or presenting their finding and scientific logical explanation.
> 
> For example, there is no life on Mars.  That will be the finding and the creationists win again (evolution loses again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about when we discover coral, jellyfish and octopus on the water Moons in the outer solar system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I sssume that when you use the term “we”, you man scientists and engineers, not wackadoodles from creation ministries. Religious extremists typically rail against science because they are terrified by it. The discovery of life elsewhere in the cosmos and even abiogenesis terrify them because eventual confirmation of the process of abiogenesis and/or discovery of life beyond earth is utterly devastating to the religious articles. Life and “creation” are very earthly concepts to Christianity and the discovery of life off of this planet would cause some creationers heads to explode. This is why we see the frantic claims from creationists that abiogenesis will never be confirmed and that “aliens” cannot exist.
> 
> The religious extremists demand that because not every answer to every question is known, it must be "the gawds did it" when we have no reason to believe the gawds did anything.
> 
> They may choose to remain ignorant and never explore beyond the bibles but that would require humanity never proceed beyond ancient fears and superstitions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was hard to read between all the froth an spittle, and the little I managed to understand did NOT address my post - at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My comment addressed your post. You didn’t know how to respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you math and science, you responded like a Jihadists and, ironically, accused ME of being a religious extremists.
> 
> You evolutionists have canned responses and have yet to convince me that you understand how a cell functions
Click to expand...

What math and science did you provide?

You religionists rattle on about math and science you don’t understand. Why not clear up any confusion about your gods and offer your “_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*_”.

Within that document, you could lay out your theory and peer reviewed testing for how “the gawds did it”.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be jealous when it was a creationist who used microscopes and discovered the cells.  They weren't all the same as thought.  It showed further evidence for God.  Isn't that what you're craving for?  Well, here it is.
> 
> In 2016, these scientists started mapping the human cells -- There's a Map for That—Human Cell Atlas.
> 
> 
> 
> That article is pure BS.
> 
> It is a RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS article from AnswersInGenesis. A PROSELYTIZATION/perversion of science.
> (I got to "Psalms")
> which has NOTHING to do with three scientists.
> 
> STOP PROSELYTIZING here.
> Get the ****** out of here!
> 
> *There is NO GOD IN EVIDENCE and SCIENCE DEMANDS EVIDENCE.*
> 
> You are a sick indoctrinated TROLL posting RELIGION in this section.
> You need to be removed from the section
> This is the Science Section, NOT religion.
> *OCD Insane.*
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one wants you to convert to anything.  Instead, we want to see you burn and suffer forever.
> 
> You prolly got knocked down a level if hell is in levels.
> 
> AIG is a creation science website; It's quite good and accurate.  You got the religious atheist websites for evolution which are never right.  They're just theories instead of having experiments or presenting their finding and scientific logical explanation.
> 
> For example, there is no life on Mars.  That will be the finding and the creationists win again (evolution loses again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about when we discover coral, jellyfish and octopus on the water Moons in the outer solar system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I sssume that when you use the term “we”, you man scientists and engineers, not wackadoodles from creation ministries. Religious extremists typically rail against science because they are terrified by it. The discovery of life elsewhere in the cosmos and even abiogenesis terrify them because eventual confirmation of the process of abiogenesis and/or discovery of life beyond earth is utterly devastating to the religious articles. Life and “creation” are very earthly concepts to Christianity and the discovery of life off of this planet would cause some creationers heads to explode. This is why we see the frantic claims from creationists that abiogenesis will never be confirmed and that “aliens” cannot exist.
> 
> The religious extremists demand that because not every answer to every question is known, it must be "the gawds did it" when we have no reason to believe the gawds did anything.
> 
> They may choose to remain ignorant and never explore beyond the bibles but that would require humanity never proceed beyond ancient fears and superstitions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was hard to read between all the froth an spittle, and the little I managed to understand did NOT address my post - at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My comment addressed your post. You didn’t know how to respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you math and science, you responded like a Jihadists and, ironically, accused ME of being a religious extremists.
> 
> You evolutionists have canned responses and have yet to convince me that you understand how a cell functions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What math and science did you provide?
> 
> You religionists rattle on about math and science you don’t understand. Why not clear up any confusion about your gods and offer your “_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*_”.
> 
> Within that document, you could lay out your theory and peer reviewed testing for how “the gawds did it”.
Click to expand...


proving my point

I gave you math and science, you responded like a Jihadists and, ironically, accused ME of being a religious extremists.

You evolutionists have canned responses and have yet to convince me that you understand how a cell functions


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Darwin, the Original G-d of the Glops thought that a cell was a very simple structure: an amorphous blob of protoplasm encased by a membrane.  Like Hollie, abu afak and others, he had no idea that a living cell is smarter and more complex than a modern cell phone. 

Can you imagine putting all of the components of a cellphone in the Home Depot Primordial Soup shake bucket and expecting that after a certain number of shakes you'd have a working cell phone?


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> *Darwin, the Original G-d of the Glops thought that a cell was a very simple structure: an amorphous blob of protoplasm encased by a membrane.  Like Hollie, abu afak and others, he had no idea that a living cell is smarter and more complex than a modern cell phone. Can you imagine putting all of the components of a cellphone in the Home Depot Primordial Soup shake bucket and expecting that after a certain number of shakes you'd have a working cell phone?*


1. What are the odds of rolling a '4' with one Di?
They are one in Six with ONLY one roll of a Di.
What are the odds of life/ANY Life on any planet in any condition during any of their 15 billion years.
YOU DON'T KNOW because you don't how many times the dice were rolled on each.
*You are Stupid and Obstinate.
You have no idea of the Odds without knowing the amount of chances/rolls of the Di it had.*

2. Your Next FALLACY just above is a variant of "The Junkyard Tornado."

Wiki:​The *junkyard tornado*, also known as *Hoyle’s Fallacy*, *is an argument used to deride the probability of abiogenesis as comparable to "the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747."*[1][2][3] It was used originally by Fred Hoyle, in which he applied statistical analysis to the origin of life, but similar observations predate Hoyle and have been found all the way back to Darwin's time,[1] and indeed to Cicero in classical times.[4] *While Hoyle himself was an atheist, the argument has since become a mainstay of creationist and intelligent design criticisms of evolution.*​​*This argument is rejected by the vast majority of biologists. *From the modern evolutionary standpoint, while the odds of the sudden construction of higher lifeforms are indeed improbably remote, evolution proceeds in many smaller stages, each driven by natural selection rather than by chance, over a long period of time. The transition as a whole is plausible, as each step improves survivability; the Boeing 747 was not designed in a single unlikely burst of creativity, and modern lifeforms were not constructed in one single unlikely event, as the junkyard tornado posits.​[.....]​



__





						Junkyard tornado - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				


​`​


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Darwin, the Original G-d of the Glops thought that a cell was a very simple structure: an amorphous blob of protoplasm encased by a membrane.  Like Hollie, abu afak and others, he had no idea that a living cell is smarter and more complex than a modern cell phone. Can you imagine putting all of the components of a cellphone in the Home Depot Primordial Soup shake bucket and expecting that after a certain number of shakes you'd have a working cell phone?*
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What are the odds of rolling a '4' with one Di?
> They are one in Six with ONLY one roll of a Di.
> What are the odds of life/ANY Life on any planet in any condition during any of their 15 billion years.
> YOU DON'T KNOW because you don't how many times the dice were rolled on each.
> *You are Stupid and Obstinate.
> You have no idea of the Odds without knowing the amount of chances/rolls of the Di it had.*
> 
> 2. Your Next FALLACY just above is a variant of "The Junkyard Tornado."
> 
> Wiki:​The *junkyard tornado*, also known as *Hoyle’s Fallacy*, *is an argument used to deride the probability of abiogenesis as comparable to "the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747."*[1][2][3] It was used originally by Fred Hoyle, in which he applied statistical analysis to the origin of life, but similar observations predate Hoyle and have been found all the way back to Darwin's time,[1] and indeed to Cicero in classical times.[4] *While Hoyle himself was an atheist, the argument has since become a mainstay of creationist and intelligent design criticisms of evolution.*​​*This argument is rejected by the vast majority of biologists. *From the modern evolutionary standpoint, while the odds of the sudden construction of higher lifeforms are indeed improbably remote, evolution proceeds in many smaller stages, each driven by natural selection rather than by chance, over a long period of time. The transition as a whole is plausible, as each step improves survivability; the Boeing 747 was not designed in a single unlikely burst of creativity, and modern lifeforms were not constructed in one single unlikely event, as the junkyard tornado posits.​[.....]​
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Junkyard tornado - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> ​`​
Click to expand...


LOL @ *This argument is rejected by the vast majority of biologists. 

Translation: we don't like the math so we reject it as it shows our Theory must fail.*


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> LOL @ *This argument is rejected by the vast majority of biologists.
> 
> Translation: we don't like the math so we reject it as it shows our Theory must fail.*


NO, you don't know math.
I showed that already you idiot.
You need BOTH the amount possibilities AND chances to achieve them to make Odds.

You're really not up to this IQ-wise.
Not close.
`


----------



## CrusaderFrank

So, biologists, please explain how these cell components stayed formed and active with they were waiting to be assembled into the first cell.  How did the digestion enzymes not eat their neighbors when they randomly jostled each other as they formed the first cell


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL @ *This argument is rejected by the vast majority of biologists.
> 
> Translation: we don't like the math so we reject it as it shows our Theory must fail.*
> 
> 
> 
> NO, you don't know math.
> I showed that already you idiot.
> You need BOTH the amount possibilities AND chances to achieve them to make Odds.
> 
> You're really not up to this IQ-wise.
> Not close.
> `
Click to expand...


I showed you the numbers Honey boo boo.  Many, many, many times.  That you can't count past 4 is not my problem

The odds of the Evolution theory being true and accurate are so astronomically against it you have to express them in scientific notation. 

You don't know that a cell is composed of enzymes, proteins, " a cell consists of three parts: the cell membrane, the nucleus, and, between the two, the cytoplasm. Within the cytoplasm lie intricate arrangements of fine fibers and hundreds or even thousands of miniscule but distinct structures called organelles."



			Cell Structure | SEER Training
		

.






See how, unlike G-d of the Glops Darwin imagined, a cell is not just an amorphous glop of protoplasm encased by a membrane?  You see that right?


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> So, biologists, please explain how these cell components stayed formed and active with they were waiting to be assembled into the first cell.  How did the digestion enzymes not eat their neighbors when they randomly jostled each other as they formed the first cell


I'm a math guy actually.
I don't have entertain your argument from Ignorance/Incredulity FALLACY.

*Nor is your above premise valid.
They might have flown apart quadrillions of times before everything meshed in one of the infinite chances in infinite places, times, conditions.*
Clearly, somewhere, some place, some time, (of the infinite amount of chances of MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF LIFE that could have/or did emerge), the first life or it's proto-components formed.
*Some silicon based (or Other) forms of life may be marveling at their luck/odds in another galaxy. *

If you throw down 200 pick up sticks, then say "look at that! What are the odds of that exact arrangement!" they are infinitely small.... AFTER the fact/in retrospect.
But when you throw them down, SOME unique exact arrangement WILL happen EVERY Time.
Then you can illogically marvel at it.. as you do. "what were the odds of that exact arrangement?"
It didn't have to be exact.

`


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, biologists, please explain how these cell components stayed formed and active with they were waiting to be assembled into the first cell.  How did the digestion enzymes not eat their neighbors when they randomly jostled each other as they formed the first cell
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a math guy actually.
> I don't have entertain your argument from Ignorance/Incredulity FALLACY.
> 
> *Nor is your above premise valid.
> They might have flown apart quadrillions of times before everything meshed in one of the infinite chances in infinite places, times, conditions.*
> Clearly, somewhere, some place, some time, (of the infinite amount of chances of MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF LIFE that could have/or did emerge), the first life or it's proto-components formed.
> *Some silicon based (or Other) forms of life may be marveling at their luck/odds in another galaxy. *
> 
> If you throw down 200 pick up sticks, then say "look at that! What are the odds of that exact arrangement!" they are infinitely small.... AFTER the fact/in retrospect.
> But when you throw them down, SOME unique exact arrangement WILL happen EVERY Time.
> Then you can illogically marvel at it.. as you do. "what were the odds of that exact arrangement?"
> It didn't have to be exact.
> 
> `
Click to expand...


You're a math guy who apparently never worked out a factorial.

Quadrillions sure sounds like an awful big big number until you realize that the odds or the part of a cell assembling randomly has THOUSANDS of zero in it.  

I showed you the math


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> You're a math guy who apparently never worked out a factorial.
> 
> Quadrillions sure sounds like an awful big big number until you realize that the odds or the part of a cell assembling randomly has THOUSANDS of zero in it.
> 
> I showed you the math


"Quadrillions" was just an example of a large number.... not a debate figure.
Not a debate figure because* NO ONE KNOWS the infinite amount of chances for success in achieving ANY life ANYwhere in the diverse universe over 15 Billion years.*
It's all very wild estimates.

*YOU 12 IQ ASSHOLE.
ODDS take BOTH sides of the boat. Chances of success vs attempts at it.
You only provided ONE Side
Therefore you have NO "math."*

ie (another example for you RETARD!)
It's like saying a man is poor because he's a billion in debt.
BUT if that man is Buffett or Bezos he is NOT poor.
Balance sheets, like Odds, are NECESSARILY TWO-sided to know the truth.
You presented a biased opinion of ONE.

`


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be jealous when it was a creationist who used microscopes and discovered the cells.  They weren't all the same as thought.  It showed further evidence for God.  Isn't that what you're craving for?  Well, here it is.
> 
> In 2016, these scientists started mapping the human cells -- There's a Map for That—Human Cell Atlas.
> 
> 
> 
> That article is pure BS.
> 
> It is a RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS article from AnswersInGenesis. A PROSELYTIZATION/perversion of science.
> (I got to "Psalms")
> which has NOTHING to do with three scientists.
> 
> STOP PROSELYTIZING here.
> Get the ****** out of here!
> 
> *There is NO GOD IN EVIDENCE and SCIENCE DEMANDS EVIDENCE.*
> 
> You are a sick indoctrinated TROLL posting RELIGION in this section.
> You need to be removed from the section
> This is the Science Section, NOT religion.
> *OCD Insane.*
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one wants you to convert to anything.  Instead, we want to see you burn and suffer forever.
> 
> You prolly got knocked down a level if hell is in levels.
> 
> AIG is a creation science website; It's quite good and accurate.  You got the religious atheist websites for evolution which are never right.  They're just theories instead of having experiments or presenting their finding and scientific logical explanation.
> 
> For example, there is no life on Mars.  That will be the finding and the creationists win again (evolution loses again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about when we discover coral, jellyfish and octopus on the water Moons in the outer solar system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I sssume that when you use the term “we”, you man scientists and engineers, not wackadoodles from creation ministries. Religious extremists typically rail against science because they are terrified by it. The discovery of life elsewhere in the cosmos and even abiogenesis terrify them because eventual confirmation of the process of abiogenesis and/or discovery of life beyond earth is utterly devastating to the religious articles. Life and “creation” are very earthly concepts to Christianity and the discovery of life off of this planet would cause some creationers heads to explode. This is why we see the frantic claims from creationists that abiogenesis will never be confirmed and that “aliens” cannot exist.
> 
> The religious extremists demand that because not every answer to every question is known, it must be "the gawds did it" when we have no reason to believe the gawds did anything.
> 
> They may choose to remain ignorant and never explore beyond the bibles but that would require humanity never proceed beyond ancient fears and superstitions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was hard to read between all the froth an spittle, and the little I managed to understand did NOT address my post - at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My comment addressed your post. You didn’t know how to respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you math and science, you responded like a Jihadists and, ironically, accused ME of being a religious extremists.
> 
> You evolutionists have canned responses and have yet to convince me that you understand how a cell functions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What math and science did you provide?
> 
> You religionists rattle on about math and science you don’t understand. Why not clear up any confusion about your gods and offer your “_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*_”.
> 
> Within that document, you could lay out your theory and peer reviewed testing for how “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> proving my point
> 
> I gave you math and science, you responded like a Jihadists and, ironically, accused ME of being a religious extremists.
> 
> You evolutionists have canned responses and have yet to convince me that you understand how a cell functions
Click to expand...

You need to be honest with yourself and others. The ID'iot creationer "... the odds are too great" is not math and it's not science. It's the cut and paste nonsense that oozes from the creationer ministries. 

If the odds against biological evolution are too great to have happened, provide some testable, verifiable evidence that your various gods are responsible. I'm simply going to hold you to the same standard that you hold the evilutionist, atheists to.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a math guy who apparently never worked out a factorial.
> 
> Quadrillions sure sounds like an awful big big number until you realize that the odds or the part of a cell assembling randomly has THOUSANDS of zero in it.
> 
> I showed you the math
> 
> 
> 
> "Quadrillions" was just an example of a large number.... not a debate figure.
> Not a debate figure because* NO ONE KNOWS the infinite amount of chances for success in achieving ANY life ANYwhere in the diverse universe over 15 Billion years.*
> It's all very wild estimates.
> 
> *YOU 12 IQ ASSHOLE.
> ODDS take BOTH sides of the boat. Chances of success vs attempts at it.
> You only provided ONE Side
> Therefore you have NO "math."*
> 
> ie (another example for you RETARD!)
> It's like saying a man is poor because he's a billion in debt.
> BUT if that man is Buffett or Bezos he is NOT poor.
> Balance sheets, like Odds, are NECESSARILY TWO-sided to know the truth.
> You presented a biased opinion of ONE.
> 
> `
Click to expand...


Take a deep breath and don't reply until tomorrow.

First, as has been pointed out, the cell is very complex. The site I posted,  which you didn't read states a "simple" cell is made of hundreds to thousands of organelles. I've been saying proteins to keep it simple. Each organelle is itself a complex structure with discreet functions. 

For purposes of the mathematical exercise, we only dealt with the odds of the organelles randomly forming a cell. It would add several orders of magnitude to first include the odds of atoms and molecules randomly forming organelles. Agreed?

Secondly, the time frame is not 15 billion years. Had you bothered to read my posts before responding, i showed that there was only 700 million years from the formation of Earth to assumed appearance of the first cell; that's the time frame.

Take your time to read and understand those teo points before responding.


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> ...Secondly, the time frame is not 15 billion years. Had you bothered to read my posts before responding, i showed that there was only 700 million years from the formation of Earth to assumed appearance of the first cell; that's the time frame.
> 
> Take your time to read and understand those teo points before responding.


*So you STILL, and Stupidly, CANNOT Tackle both sides of the ODDS calculation.
So you not only do not have impossible, near impossible, unlikely,.. or ANYTHING.

And I was talking about the Universe, not just earth.. obviously.
(and life could have formed elsewhere first, also obviously, like one of those asteroids I made an OP of, which contains the necessary ingredients.)
unless you want to take your 'god' out of the larger equation.
Of course we don't have your version of.. KWEATION.
Embarrassed huh.*


`


----------



## Wyatt earp

AFrench2 said:


> Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.


To bad liberals never evolved .


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Secondly, the time frame is not 15 billion years. Had you bothered to read my posts before responding, i showed that there was only 700 million years from the formation of Earth to assumed appearance of the first cell; that's the time frame.
> 
> Take your time to read and understand those teo points before responding.
> 
> 
> 
> *So you STILL, and Stupidly, CANNOT Tackle both sides of the ODDS calculation.
> So you not only do not have impossible, near impossible, unlikely,.. or ANYTHING.
> 
> And I was talking about the Universe, not just earth.. obviously.
> (and life could have formed elsewhere first, also obviously, like one of those asteroids I made an OP of, which contains the necessary ingredients.)
> unless you want to take your 'god' out of the larger equation.
> Of course we don't have your version of.. KWEATION.
> Embarrassed huh.*
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...


You didn't take the time to think it over


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Asexual reproduction is not uncommon.



It's quite common, but sexual reproduction couldn't have just popped into existence by itself.



Hollie said:


> I never claimed you were trying to convert anyone. I wrote you were proselytizing. You’re a salesman. Instead of hawking used chevy’s, you’re hawking your version of the gods.



What do you think proselytizing means?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asexual reproduction is not uncommon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite common, but sexual reproduction couldn't have just popped into existence by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed you were trying to convert anyone. I wrote you were proselytizing. You’re a salesman. Instead of hawking used chevy’s, you’re hawking your version of the gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think proelytizing means?
Click to expand...


"... sexual reproduction couldn't have popped into existence by itself''
You forgot to append ''because I say so''.

It's an odd dynamic with the hyper-religious. They insist their gods can pop into existence by themselves and then these gods can pop all of existence into creation... like magic, but biological organisms can't reproduce. 

Why do you bring your hard-sell brand of proselytizing into a science forum?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Even the components of the cell are complex and interconnected. Darwin thought the cell membrane was a simple sausage casing around a amorphous Glop of protoplasm with no distinguishing features.

Functions of Lipids, Proteins, & Lipopolysaccharides on Cell Membrane?

*What are the Functions of Lipids, Proteins, and Lipopolysaccharides on the Cell Membrane?*

The cell membrane is an important barrier that separates the internal environment of a cell from the external environment. It separates the internal cell environment from the extracellular matrix in multicellular animals.

While it's commonly referred to as a phospholipid bilayer structure, the cell membrane also consists of several other components including proteins and carbohydrate groups. 









They all have to work together PERFECTLY for the cell to function.

It is physically and mathematically impossible for this to have come together randomly


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Even the components of the cell are complex and interconnected. Darwin thought the cell membrane was a simple sausage casing around a amorphous Glop of protoplasm with no distinguishing features.
> 
> Functions of Lipids, Proteins, & Lipopolysaccharides on Cell Membrane?
> 
> *What are the Functions of Lipids, Proteins, and Lipopolysaccharides on the Cell Membrane?*
> 
> The cell membrane is an important barrier that separates the internal environment of a cell from the external environment. It separates the internal cell environment from the extracellular matrix in multicellular animals.
> 
> While it's commonly referred to as a phospholipid bilayer structure, the cell membrane also consists of several other components including proteins and carbohydrate groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all have to work together PERFECTLY for the cell to function.
> 
> It is physically and mathematically impossible for this to have come together randomly


"It is physically and mathematically impossible for this to have come together randomly"  

Appended to add, "because I said so".


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Even the components of the cell are complex and interconnected. Darwin thought the cell membrane was a simple sausage casing around a amorphous Glop of protoplasm with no distinguishing features.
> 
> Functions of Lipids, Proteins, & Lipopolysaccharides on Cell Membrane?
> 
> *What are the Functions of Lipids, Proteins, and Lipopolysaccharides on the Cell Membrane?*
> 
> The cell membrane is an important barrier that separates the internal environment of a cell from the external environment. It separates the internal cell environment from the extracellular matrix in multicellular animals.
> 
> While it's commonly referred to as a phospholipid bilayer structure, the cell membrane also consists of several other components including proteins and carbohydrate groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all have to work together PERFECTLY for the cell to function.
> 
> It is physically and mathematically impossible for this to have come together randomly


"Darwin thought the cell membrane was a simple sausage casing around a amorphous Glop"

You just made up that nonsense claim, right?


----------



## ding

...drives atheists crazy


----------



## ding

There is nothing random about the micro machines of life nor does it lend itself to slight variations or natural selection.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the components of the cell are complex and interconnected. Darwin thought the cell membrane was a simple sausage casing around a amorphous Glop of protoplasm with no distinguishing features.
> 
> Functions of Lipids, Proteins, & Lipopolysaccharides on Cell Membrane?
> 
> *What are the Functions of Lipids, Proteins, and Lipopolysaccharides on the Cell Membrane?*
> 
> The cell membrane is an important barrier that separates the internal environment of a cell from the external environment. It separates the internal cell environment from the extracellular matrix in multicellular animals.
> 
> While it's commonly referred to as a phospholipid bilayer structure, the cell membrane also consists of several other components including proteins and carbohydrate groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all have to work together PERFECTLY for the cell to function.
> 
> It is physically and mathematically impossible for this to have come together randomly
> 
> 
> 
> "It is physically and mathematically impossible for this to have come together randomly"
> 
> Appended to add, "because I said so".
Click to expand...


Because the math says so.

abu afak is STILL stuck on Darwin's primitive idea that a cell is sausage packing encasing an amorphous blob of protoplasm. Nothing could be further from the Truth!  Each of the hundreds and thousands of organelles that make up a single cell are themselves complicated  and intricate. 

The idea that inorganic molecules and atoms collided and made perfectly functioning organelles which in turn randomly assembled into a working cell is laughable


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the components of the cell are complex and interconnected. Darwin thought the cell membrane was a simple sausage casing around a amorphous Glop of protoplasm with no distinguishing features.
> 
> Functions of Lipids, Proteins, & Lipopolysaccharides on Cell Membrane?
> 
> *What are the Functions of Lipids, Proteins, and Lipopolysaccharides on the Cell Membrane?*
> 
> The cell membrane is an important barrier that separates the internal environment of a cell from the external environment. It separates the internal cell environment from the extracellular matrix in multicellular animals.
> 
> While it's commonly referred to as a phospholipid bilayer structure, the cell membrane also consists of several other components including proteins and carbohydrate groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all have to work together PERFECTLY for the cell to function.
> 
> It is physically and mathematically impossible for this to have come together randomly
> 
> 
> 
> "Darwin thought the cell membrane was a simple sausage casing around a amorphous Glop"
> 
> You just made up that nonsense claim, right?
Click to expand...


No, hun. You should actually read up on this before commenting


----------



## ding

Wonder how Darwin would have explained this....


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Secondly, the time frame is not 15 billion years. Had you bothered to read my posts before responding, i showed that there was only 700 million years from the formation of Earth to assumed appearance of the first cell; that's the time frame.
> 
> Take your time to read and understand those teo points before responding.
> 
> 
> 
> *So you STILL, and Stupidly, CANNOT Tackle both sides of the ODDS calculation.
> So you not only do not have impossible, near impossible, unlikely,.. or ANYTHING.
> 
> And I was talking about the Universe, not just earth.. obviously.
> (and life could have formed elsewhere first, also obviously, like one of those asteroids I made an OP of, which contains the necessary ingredients.)
> unless you want to take your 'god' out of the larger equation.
> Of course we don't have your version of.. KWEATION.
> Embarrassed huh.*
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...


There's no way the rudimentary chemical reactions of nature created life.  Abiogenesis, the formation of life from non-living material by strictly natural processes, is a pipedream, a fantasy, a myth, a story, a fairy tale, the stuff of a bad hangover . . . indeed, the stuff of what Alice gives you when she's ten feet tall.

*Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Why would I be jealous when it was a creationist who used microscopes and discovered the cells.


And did so by setting aside your preferred magical horseshit. When we learn things, we only do so by setting aside iron aged mythology and especially your self soothing, embarrassing lies.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Wonder how Darwin would have explained this....


Explained what? Nobody is going to watch that. Sum it up in a couple sentences.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.
> 
> 
> 
> To bad liberals never evolved .
Click to expand...

Good god... you cultists have lost all capacity for anything but culting.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFrench2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.
> 
> 
> 
> To bad liberals never evolved .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good god... you cultists have lost all capacity for anything but culting.
Click to expand...

^^ case in point


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Thoth001 said:


> I tend to subscribe the the Ancient Astronaut theory for humans. Either way they are all just theories and no one really knows for sure what exactly happened in the past. No doubt though that many things evolve over time. A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their are no Neanderthals left?


There are many species that became extinct.  Neanderthals are just one.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder how Darwin would have explained this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explained what? Nobody is going to watch that. Sum it up in a couple sentences.
Click to expand...

Really?  It's pretty fascinating.  Are you against science or something?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder how Darwin would have explained this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explained what? Nobody is going to watch that. Sum it up in a couple sentences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  It's pretty fascinating.  Are you against science or something?
Click to expand...

Haha, you didn't even watch the video. Damn, everyone on this message board is exactly the same. The next time one of you read your own links or watches one of your own videos might be the first.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder how Darwin would have explained this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explained what? Nobody is going to watch that. Sum it up in a couple sentences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  It's pretty fascinating.  Are you against science or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, you didn't even watch the video. Damn, everyone on this message board is exactly the same. The next time one of you read your own links or watches one of your own videos might be the first.
Click to expand...

Of course I did, dummy.  I've seen it several times which is several times more than you have seen it.


----------



## ding

You just got to love a moron - who didn't watch a 2 minute video - accuse others of what he didn't do.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> I've seen it several times which is several times more than you have seen it


But didn't understand any of it, and so can't explain it to anyone, apparently.  So i guess you're looking for someone else to explain it to you.


----------



## Ringtone

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Explained what? Nobody is going to watch that. Sum it up in a couple sentences.



Excerpt from my article "*Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism"**:*

The Miller-Urey experiments showed that under the right conditions nature might be able to build some of life’s amino acids; later discoveries in space and here on Earth confirmed that.  But that in and of itself was not the rhyme or the reason of the experiments’ underlying hypothesis, and beyond that, what have these experiments shown us?  Well, not much about that which was expected, but plenty about that which is obvious.​​The natural occurrence of amino acids is light years away from life, and there exists no consistently coherent or demonstrable explanation for how they aggregated and combined via the rudimentary, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry to form the complex proteins we find in life.  And even if such a thing were possible, we’d still not be there.​​How did the many thousands of mindless proteins, which can only function within a very narrow range of conditions, aggregate and combine in the exact sequences required to build the hundreds of intricately complex and interdependent pieces of machinery minimally required by the simplest microorganisms?  The process could not have been accumulative, but had to have been instantaneously synchronous for obvious reasons.  All these things evince a certain set of preconditions and necessities which stupid materialist layman will never understand and agenda-driven scientists rarely acknowledge.​​If one allows that an intelligent agent was required to create the simplest lifeform, one opens the door to a world wherein the regnant theory for the development of the other, more complex lifeforms might unravel.  If an intelligent agent did it once, what would prevent him from doing it again and again?​​We now know that life arose much earlier than was ever thought possible, and the ramifications of this are devastating for the prospects of abiogenesis, which just keeps running into wall after wall after wall.  And the more apparent the complexity of the genome and the infrastructural machinery and processes of the cell become, the denser the walls become.​​Ultimately, we really don’t have a clue about how to explain any of this without considering the necessity of a preexisting intelligence, which is precisely why an increasing number of biologists are hesitantly going where most are ill-disposed to go… .  While it still wouldn’t scientifically resolve the problem of ultimate origins concerning the known lifeforms on Earth, at the very least the evidence points to intelligent extraterrestrials.  And that is precisely the point ID scientists have been making for years.  (Also, the various hypotheses of panspermia typically serve to further confuse the matter in the minds of many, as the ultimate problem is not the potentially more favorable conditions of other planetary systems in the past and in space, but, as we shall see more clearly, information.)​​Atheism is poisoning science.  Intellectual fascists are arbitrarily asserting scientific materialism against the evidence.​


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen it several times which is several times more than you have seen it
> 
> 
> 
> But didn't understand any of it, and so can't explain it to anyone, apparently.  So i guess you're looking for someone else to explain it to you.
Click to expand...

What's to explain, dummy?  Please feel free to explain how natural selection and successive iterations led to the evolution of the many different micromachines in your body.


----------



## ding

And the moron still has not watched the 2 minute video.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Please feel free to explain how natural selection and successive iterations led to the evolution of the many different micromachines in your body.


Simple: small changes over time in all the parts. Well that was a softball question. 7th grade science class fare.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please feel free to explain how natural selection and successive iterations led to the evolution of the many different micromachines in your body.
> 
> 
> 
> Simple: small changes over time in all the parts. Well that was a softball question. 7th grade science class fare.
Click to expand...

Not possible for micro machines, dummy.  You think you can make a change and it will still work?  You really are stupid.


----------



## Astrostar

abu afak said:


> Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
> Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.
> 
> *HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION*
> Smithsonian Magazine -- 4-19-2018
> 
> *""Rick Potts is no atheist-evolutionist-Darwinist.* That often comes as a surprise to the faith communities he works with as head of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Human Origins Program in Washington, D.C.
> 
> Raised Protestant — with, he likes to say, “an emphasis on the ‘protest’” — the paleoanthropologist spends his weekends singing in a choir that sings both sacred and secular songs. At 18, he became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War...
> [....]That’s why, for him, human evolution is the perfect topic to break down entrenched barriers between people in an increasingly polarized, politicized world.
> [.....]
> If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: *Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.*
> 
> What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, *among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?*
> [.....]
> [.....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution
> 
> 
> For two years, researchers from the Smithsonian traveled the country explaining the science of our shared origins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com


No brainer.  Just ignore their ignorant asses!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Not possible for micro machines


False. Go to the religion section, to make stuff up. This is the science section.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explained what? Nobody is going to watch that. Sum it up in a couple sentences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt from my article "*Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism"**:*
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiments showed that under the right conditions nature might be able to build some of life’s amino acids; later discoveries in space and here on Earth confirmed that.  But that in and of itself was not the rhyme or the reason of the experiments’ underlying hypothesis, and beyond that, what have these experiments shown us?  Well, not much about that which was expected, but plenty about that which is obvious.​​The natural occurrence of amino acids is light years away from life, and there exists no consistently coherent or demonstrable explanation for how they aggregated and combined via the rudimentary, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry to form the complex proteins we find in life.  And even if such a thing were possible, we’d still not be there.​​How did the many thousands of mindless proteins, which can only function within a very narrow range of conditions, aggregate and combine in the exact sequences required to build the hundreds of intricately complex and interdependent pieces of machinery minimally required by the simplest microorganisms?  The process could not have been accumulative, but had to have been instantaneously synchronous for obvious reasons.  All these things evince a certain set of preconditions and necessities which stupid materialist layman will never understand and agenda-driven scientists rarely acknowledge.​​If one allows that an intelligent agent was required to create the simplest lifeform, one opens the door to a world wherein the regnant theory for the development of the other, more complex lifeforms might unravel.  If an intelligent agent did it once, what would prevent him from doing it again and again?​​We now know that life arose much earlier than was ever thought possible, and the ramifications of this are devastating for the prospects of abiogenesis, which just keeps running into wall after wall after wall.  And the more apparent the complexity of the genome and the infrastructural machinery and processes of the cell become, the denser the walls become.​​Ultimately, we really don’t have a clue about how to explain any of this without considering the necessity of a preexisting intelligence, which is precisely why an increasing number of biologists are hesitantly going where most are ill-disposed to go… .  While it still wouldn’t scientifically resolve the problem of ultimate origins concerning the known lifeforms on Earth, at the very least the evidence points to intelligent extraterrestrials.  And that is precisely the point ID scientists have been making for years.  (Also, the various hypotheses of panspermia typically serve to further confuse the matter in the minds of many, as the ultimate problem is not the potentially more favorable conditions of other planetary systems in the past and in space, but, as we shall see more clearly, information.)​​Atheism is poisoning science.  Intellectual fascists are arbitrarily asserting scientific materialism against the evidence.​
Click to expand...

Ultimately, the ID'iot creationer retreat to ''it's complicated, therefore the gawds did it'', is hopeless and simply an appeal to their fears and ignorance.

There’s nothing to suggest that the universe was created by supernatural gods . As the measurements of science become more precise and as more is learned, we may eventually discover the cause. That’s exciting and gives hope for exploration.

To abandon the search for discovery and rely on books of fables we know are flawed, which use the distillation of gods derived from earlier gods, written by unknown authors who relay tales of magic and superstition projects a measure of hopelessness. The gods dead end at a book written by men and never subject to final editing by the gods, 

It's as though I can only shrug my shoulders and despair at the hopelessness of the ID'iot creationer mindset. Its really comically tragic to read the nonsense from the YEC'ers about ''Atheists poisoning science'' when those YEC'ers are the same people who benefit from the work of those same evilutionist, Atheist scientists. While great Hindu philosophers have done even more with mathematics, great Greek pantheistic philosophers more with medicine, great Buddhist (and Taoist!) philosophers more with chemistry, every last one of them has been superseded by entirely secular scholars as the boundaries of knowledge have been pushed back by specialized researchers.

The day of the pre-eminent religious/philosophical thinker has come and gone. I don't call it good or bad. I call it truth.


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> abu afak is STILL stuck on Darwin's primitive idea that a cell is sausage packing encasing an amorphous blob of protoplasm. Nothing could be further from the Truth!  Each of the hundreds and thousands of organelles that make up a single cell are themselves complicated  and intricate.
> 
> The idea that inorganic molecules and atoms collided and made perfectly functioning organelles which in turn randomly assembled into a working cell is laughable





Ringtone said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explained what? Nobody is going to watch that. Sum it up in a couple sentences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt from my article "
> *A biogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism"**:*
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiments showed that under the right conditions nature might be able to build some of life’s amino acids; later discoveries in space and here on Earth confirmed that.  But that in and of itself was not the rhyme or the reason of the experiments’ underlying hypothesis, and beyond that, what have these experiments shown us?  Well, not much about that which was expected, but plenty about that which is obvious.​​The natural occurrence of amino acids is light years away from life, and there exists no consistently coherent or demonstrable explanation for how they aggregated and combined via the rudimentary, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry to form the complex proteins we find in life.  And even if such a thing were possible, we’d still not be there.​​How did the many thousands of mindless proteins, which can only function within a very narrow range of conditions, aggregate and combine in the exact sequences required to build the hundreds of intricately complex and interdependent pieces of machinery minimally required by the simplest microorganisms?  The process could not have been accumulative, but had to have been instantaneously synchronous for obvious reasons.  All these things evince a certain set of preconditions and necessities which stupid materialist layman will never understand and agenda-driven scientists rarely acknowledge.​​If one allows that an intelligent agent was required to create the simplest lifeform, one opens the door to a world wherein the regnant theory for the development of the other, more complex lifeforms might unravel.  If an intelligent agent did it once, what would prevent him from doing it again and again?​​We now know that life arose much earlier than was ever thought possible, and the ramifications of this are devastating for the prospects of abiogenesis, which just keeps running into wall after wall after wall.  And the more apparent the complexity of the genome and the infrastructural machinery and processes of the cell become, the denser the walls become.​​Ultimately, we really don’t have a clue about how to explain any of this without considering the necessity of a preexisting intelligence, which is precisely why an increasing number of biologists are hesitantly going where most are ill-disposed to go… .  While it still wouldn’t scientifically resolve the problem of ultimate origins concerning the known lifeforms on Earth, at the very least the evidence points to intelligent extraterrestrials.  And that is precisely the point ID scientists have been making for years.  (Also, the various hypotheses of panspermia typically serve to further confuse the matter in the minds of many, as the ultimate problem is not the potentially more favorable conditions of other planetary systems in the past and in space, but, as we shall see more clearly, information.)​​Atheism is poisoning science.  Intellectual fascists are arbitrarily asserting scientific materialism against the evidence.​
Click to expand...

You're done/Lost here.
Just like all the other boards you've Failed on.
You have nothing but repeats/re-posts (Your 10th of the above on this board alone?)

All you do beside SPAM your fallacious blog speech is one line idiot trolling with poems.
Do yourself a favor, try and find any remaining message boards that might have escaped so far.
`


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not possible for micro machines
> 
> 
> 
> False. Go to the religion section, to make stuff up. This is the science section.
Click to expand...

Are you even listening to what you are saying?  Are you seriously applying natural selection to the micro machines of a cell?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not possible for micro machines
> 
> 
> 
> False. Go to the religion section, to make stuff up. This is the science section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you even listening to what you are saying?  Are you seriously applying natural selection to the micro machines of a cell?
Click to expand...

Not just me. The entire global scientific community. Yes, you are wrong and nuts.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not possible for micro machines
> 
> 
> 
> False. Go to the religion section, to make stuff up. This is the science section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you even listening to what you are saying?  Are you seriously applying natural selection to the micro machines of a cell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just me. The entire global scientific community. Yes, you are wrong and nuts.
Click to expand...

Show me then.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not possible for micro machines
> 
> 
> 
> False. Go to the religion section, to make stuff up. This is the science section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you even listening to what you are saying?  Are you seriously applying natural selection to the micro machines of a cell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just me. The entire global scientific community. Yes, you are wrong and nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me then.
Click to expand...

Show you what? Trillions of trillions of chemical reactions over billions of years? Sorry fetishist...your request is not rational or reasonable.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not possible for micro machines
> 
> 
> 
> False. Go to the religion section, to make stuff up. This is the science section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you even listening to what you are saying?  Are you seriously applying natural selection to the micro machines of a cell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just me. The entire global scientific community. Yes, you are wrong and nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show you what? Trillions of trillions of chemical reactions over billions of years? Sorry fetishist...your request is not rational or reasonable.
Click to expand...

No.  Show me where this has been discussed.  I can be convinced but not just because you say so.  

Show me where the scientific community has discussed natural selection with regard to the inner working of a cell.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not possible for micro machines
> 
> 
> 
> False. Go to the religion section, to make stuff up. This is the science section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you even listening to what you are saying?  Are you seriously applying natural selection to the micro machines of a cell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just me. The entire global scientific community. Yes, you are wrong and nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show you what? Trillions of trillions of chemical reactions over billions of years? Sorry fetishist...your request is not rational or reasonable.
Click to expand...

Look, these animations were made by the scientific community.  So show me how they think these micro machines evolved through natural selection and successive slight iterations as you claimed.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Show me where this has been discussed.


In every university and lab in the world. Selection of some form produced every physical system found in life.  It is considered fact, in the global scientific community. . Welcome to 2021, enjoy your stay.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Look, these animations were made by the scientific community.


Haha...so what? What a stupid talking point.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where this has been discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> In every university and lab in the world. Selection of some form produced every physical system found in life.  It is considered fact, in the global scientific community. . Welcome to 2021, enjoy your stay.
Click to expand...

Dude, you made a claim you can't back up.  I'm not arguing anything magical here.  You already know I believe evolution is compatible with a creator.  But I'm not going to suspend reason and make silly assumptions like you do because you worship science like a mindless drone.  We already know that Darwin got transference wrong.  In a 15 years I'm sure we will discover other things he got wrong as well.  I've already discussed one of them with you; en mass genetic mutations.  I honestly do not see how these wonderfully amazing micro machines could have evolved according to natural selection / successive slight iterations.  

You have literally made an assumption with no data to support it.  I on the other hand have questioned how these micro machines could have evolved according to natural selection.  This is a fair challenge.  You on the other hand are acting like an idiot making claim you can't back up.  

So put up or shut up.  If yo can prove what you say, I will be the first to good job.  But until you do that I suggest you check yourself lest I make it my mission to make you look more stupid than you already do.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, these animations were made by the scientific community.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...so what? What a stupid talking point.
Click to expand...

You are a moron.  You might as well genuflect.  Did you come by your stupidity naturally?  Do you make it a habit to make statements you can't back up.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, these animations were made by the scientific community.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...so what? What a stupid talking point.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who made a statement he can't back up, dummy.  Put up or shut up.


----------



## ding

I really do hate stupid ***** who fuck up science.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, these animations were made by the scientific community.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...so what? What a stupid talking point.
Click to expand...

Here, dick head, learn something about proteins.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Dude, you made a claim you can't back up.


Of course i can. How absurd. Its literally the basis of all biology. Nor have you offered any other reason the scientific community posits for the formation of cells amd their workings. You cant, because there isn't any. You can go into ding masturbation spam mode now, and stay there all night, and you will have made no progress in the morning. Sorry.

Don't waste my time with this dusty old creationist horseshit. Publish your research paper. Get back to me when it is published. Thanks!


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you made a claim you can't back up.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course i can. How absurd. Its literally the basis of all biology. Nor have you offered any other reason the scientific community posits for the formation of cells amd their workings. You can go into ding masturbation spam mode now, and stay there all night, and you will have made no progress in the morning. Sorry.
> 
> Don't waste my time with this dusty old creationist horseshit. Publish your research paper. Get back to me when it is published. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Here, dick head, learn what Darwin got wrong, you fucking stooge.









						Was Darwin Wrong About Evolution? New Discoveries Suggest He May Have Been.
					

New aspects of evolution have come to light with the introduction of advanced technologies that didn't exist during Darwin's era.




					www.nationalgeographic.com


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you made a claim you can't back up.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course i can. How absurd. Its literally the basis of all biology. Nor have you offered any other reason the scientific community posits for the formation of cells amd their workings. You cant, because there isn't any. You can go into ding masturbation spam mode now, and stay there all night, and you will have made no progress in the morning. Sorry.
> 
> Don't waste my time with this dusty old creationist horseshit. Publish your research paper. Get back to me when it is published. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Here, dick head, something else you should read so you won't be such a religious fanatic about natural selection, you disingenuous fuck.









						What Darwin Didn't Know
					

Today's scientists marvel that the 19th-century naturalist's grand vision of evolution is still the key to life




					www.smithsonianmag.com


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you made a claim you can't back up.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course i can. How absurd. Its literally the basis of all biology. Nor have you offered any other reason the scientific community posits for the formation of cells amd their workings. You cant, because there isn't any. You can go into ding masturbation spam mode now, and stay there all night, and you will have made no progress in the morning. Sorry.
> 
> Don't waste my time with this dusty old creationist horseshit. Publish your research paper. Get back to me when it is published. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Here you go, dick head, some more reading for you.  





__





						Evolution: Library: What Darwin Didn't Know: Gregor Mendel and the Mechanism of Heredity
					





					www.pbs.org


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you made a claim you can't back up.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course i can. How absurd. Its literally the basis of all biology. Nor have you offered any other reason the scientific community posits for the formation of cells amd their workings. You cant, because there isn't any. You can go into ding masturbation spam mode now, and stay there all night, and you will have made no progress in the morning. Sorry.
> 
> Don't waste my time with this dusty old creationist horseshit. Publish your research paper. Get back to me when it is published. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, dick head, something else you should read so you won't be such a religious fanatic about natural selection, you disingenuous fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Darwin Didn't Know
> 
> 
> Today's scientists marvel that the 19th-century naturalist's grand vision of evolution is still the key to life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com
Click to expand...

Sorry, i don't see any modern scientific theories about how cells and their mechanisms were formed in any of your blubbering. Nor will i, because there is only one, and it is accepted fact.. Like i said....spam masturbation mode....


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you made a claim you can't back up.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course i can. How absurd. Its literally the basis of all biology. Nor have you offered any other reason the scientific community posits for the formation of cells amd their workings. You cant, because there isn't any. You can go into ding masturbation spam mode now, and stay there all night, and you will have made no progress in the morning. Sorry.
> 
> Don't waste my time with this dusty old creationist horseshit. Publish your research paper. Get back to me when it is published. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, dick head, something else you should read so you won't be such a religious fanatic about natural selection, you disingenuous fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Darwin Didn't Know
> 
> 
> Today's scientists marvel that the 19th-century naturalist's grand vision of evolution is still the key to life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, i don't see any modern scientific theories about how cells and their mechanisms were formed in any of your blubbering. Nor will i, because there is only one, and it is accepted fact.. Like i said....spam masturbation mode....
Click to expand...

You don't know shit about science, dude.  You are a fucking joke.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you made a claim you can't back up.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course i can. How absurd. Its literally the basis of all biology. Nor have you offered any other reason the scientific community posits for the formation of cells amd their workings. You cant, because there isn't any. You can go into ding masturbation spam mode now, and stay there all night, and you will have made no progress in the morning. Sorry.
> 
> Don't waste my time with this dusty old creationist horseshit. Publish your research paper. Get back to me when it is published. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, dick head, something else you should read so you won't be such a religious fanatic about natural selection, you disingenuous fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Darwin Didn't Know
> 
> 
> Today's scientists marvel that the 19th-century naturalist's grand vision of evolution is still the key to life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, i don't see any modern scientific theories about how cells and their mechanisms were formed in any of your blubbering. Nor will i, because there is only one, and it is accepted fact.. Like i said....spam masturbation mode....
Click to expand...

Everything you type is spam because you are a fake.  You don't know jack shit about anything.


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak is STILL stuck on Darwin's primitive idea that a cell is sausage packing encasing an amorphous blob of protoplasm. Nothing could be further from the Truth!  Each of the hundreds and thousands of organelles that make up a single cell are themselves complicated  and intricate.
> 
> The idea that inorganic molecules and atoms collided and made perfectly functioning organelles which in turn randomly assembled into a working cell is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explained what? Nobody is going to watch that. Sum it up in a couple sentences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excerpt from my article "
> *A biogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism"**:*
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiments showed that under the right conditions nature might be able to build some of life’s amino acids; later discoveries in space and here on Earth confirmed that.  But that in and of itself was not the rhyme or the reason of the experiments’ underlying hypothesis, and beyond that, what have these experiments shown us?  Well, not much about that which was expected, but plenty about that which is obvious.​​The natural occurrence of amino acids is light years away from life, and there exists no consistently coherent or demonstrable explanation for how they aggregated and combined via the rudimentary, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry to form the complex proteins we find in life.  And even if such a thing were possible, we’d still not be there.​​How did the many thousands of mindless proteins, which can only function within a very narrow range of conditions, aggregate and combine in the exact sequences required to build the hundreds of intricately complex and interdependent pieces of machinery minimally required by the simplest microorganisms?  The process could not have been accumulative, but had to have been instantaneously synchronous for obvious reasons.  All these things evince a certain set of preconditions and necessities which stupid materialist layman will never understand and agenda-driven scientists rarely acknowledge.​​If one allows that an intelligent agent was required to create the simplest lifeform, one opens the door to a world wherein the regnant theory for the development of the other, more complex lifeforms might unravel.  If an intelligent agent did it once, what would prevent him from doing it again and again?​​We now know that life arose much earlier than was ever thought possible, and the ramifications of this are devastating for the prospects of abiogenesis, which just keeps running into wall after wall after wall.  And the more apparent the complexity of the genome and the infrastructural machinery and processes of the cell become, the denser the walls become.​​Ultimately, we really don’t have a clue about how to explain any of this without considering the necessity of a preexisting intelligence, which is precisely why an increasing number of biologists are hesitantly going where most are ill-disposed to go… .  While it still wouldn’t scientifically resolve the problem of ultimate origins concerning the known lifeforms on Earth, at the very least the evidence points to intelligent extraterrestrials.  And that is precisely the point ID scientists have been making for years.  (Also, the various hypotheses of panspermia typically serve to further confuse the matter in the minds of many, as the ultimate problem is not the potentially more favorable conditions of other planetary systems in the past and in space, but, as we shall see more clearly, information.)​​Atheism is poisoning science.  Intellectual fascists are arbitrarily asserting scientific materialism against the evidence.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're done/Lost here.
> Just like all the other boards you've Failed on.
> You have nothing but repeats/re-posts (Your 10th of the above on this board alone?)
> 
> All you do beside SPAM your fallacious blog speech is one line idiot trolling with poems.
> Do yourself a favor, try and find any remaining message boards that might have escaped so far.
> `
Click to expand...


Did you have a real argument and forgot to make it _or_ did you start to make a real argument and lost your way?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you made a claim you can't back up.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course i can. How absurd. Its literally the basis of all biology. Nor have you offered any other reason the scientific community posits for the formation of cells amd their workings. You cant, because there isn't any. You can go into ding masturbation spam mode now, and stay there all night, and you will have made no progress in the morning. Sorry.
> 
> Don't waste my time with this dusty old creationist horseshit. Publish your research paper. Get back to me when it is published. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, dick head, something else you should read so you won't be such a religious fanatic about natural selection, you disingenuous fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Darwin Didn't Know
> 
> 
> Today's scientists marvel that the 19th-century naturalist's grand vision of evolution is still the key to life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, i don't see any modern scientific theories about how cells and their mechanisms were formed in any of your blubbering. Nor will i, because there is only one, and it is accepted fact.. Like i said....spam masturbation mode....
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who made the claim, dick head.  You did.  A claim you can't back up and makes no sense at all.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you made a claim you can't back up.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course i can. How absurd. Its literally the basis of all biology. Nor have you offered any other reason the scientific community posits for the formation of cells amd their workings. You cant, because there isn't any. You can go into ding masturbation spam mode now, and stay there all night, and you will have made no progress in the morning. Sorry.
> 
> Don't waste my time with this dusty old creationist horseshit. Publish your research paper. Get back to me when it is published. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, dick head, something else you should read so you won't be such a religious fanatic about natural selection, you disingenuous fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Darwin Didn't Know
> 
> 
> Today's scientists marvel that the 19th-century naturalist's grand vision of evolution is still the key to life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, i don't see any modern scientific theories about how cells and their mechanisms were formed in any of your blubbering. Nor will i, because there is only one, and it is accepted fact.. Like i said....spam masturbation mode....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not the one who made the claim, dick head.  You did.  A claim you can't back up and makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

Cry it all out ding.

Now, what is the alternative explanation to be found in the global scientific community? 

You will never answer. Because an answer does not exist, unless you lie and make one up. So you may squirt yourself when you ridicule me for repeating what scientists have learned and think is fact, but you are also ridiculing all of them. Which makes you just another crazy person on the corner with a sandwich board sign and a bullhorn, pestering normal people.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you made a claim you can't back up.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course i can. How absurd. Its literally the basis of all biology. Nor have you offered any other reason the scientific community posits for the formation of cells amd their workings. You cant, because there isn't any. You can go into ding masturbation spam mode now, and stay there all night, and you will have made no progress in the morning. Sorry.
> 
> Don't waste my time with this dusty old creationist horseshit. Publish your research paper. Get back to me when it is published. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, dick head, something else you should read so you won't be such a religious fanatic about natural selection, you disingenuous fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Darwin Didn't Know
> 
> 
> Today's scientists marvel that the 19th-century naturalist's grand vision of evolution is still the key to life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, i don't see any modern scientific theories about how cells and their mechanisms were formed in any of your blubbering. Nor will i, because there is only one, and it is accepted fact.. Like i said....spam masturbation mode....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not the one who made the claim, dick head.  You did.  A claim you can't back up and makes no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cry it all out ding.
> 
> Now, what is the alternative explanation to be found in the global scientific community?
> 
> You will never answer. Because an answer does not exist, unless you lie and make one up. So you may squirt yourself when you ridicule me for repeating what scientists have learned and think is fact, but you are also ridiculing all of them. Which makes you just another crazy person on the corner with a sandwich board sign and a bullhorn, pestering normal people.
Click to expand...

This shit ain't random.  Deal with it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you made a claim you can't back up.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course i can. How absurd. Its literally the basis of all biology. Nor have you offered any other reason the scientific community posits for the formation of cells amd their workings. You cant, because there isn't any. You can go into ding masturbation spam mode now, and stay there all night, and you will have made no progress in the morning. Sorry.
> 
> Don't waste my time with this dusty old creationist horseshit. Publish your research paper. Get back to me when it is published. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, dick head, something else you should read so you won't be such a religious fanatic about natural selection, you disingenuous fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Darwin Didn't Know
> 
> 
> Today's scientists marvel that the 19th-century naturalist's grand vision of evolution is still the key to life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, i don't see any modern scientific theories about how cells and their mechanisms were formed in any of your blubbering. Nor will i, because there is only one, and it is accepted fact.. Like i said....spam masturbation mode....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not the one who made the claim, dick head.  You did.  A claim you can't back up and makes no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cry it all out ding.
> 
> Now, what is the alternative explanation to be found in the global scientific community?
> 
> You will never answer. Because an answer does not exist, unless you lie and make one up. So you may squirt yourself when you ridicule me for repeating what scientists have learned and think is fact, but you are also ridiculing all of them. Which makes you just another crazy person on the corner with a sandwich board sign and a bullhorn, pestering normal people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This shit ain't random.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. Selection is precisely NOT random. I feel like i taught you something today.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you made a claim you can't back up.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course i can. How absurd. Its literally the basis of all biology. Nor have you offered any other reason the scientific community posits for the formation of cells amd their workings. You cant, because there isn't any. You can go into ding masturbation spam mode now, and stay there all night, and you will have made no progress in the morning. Sorry.
> 
> Don't waste my time with this dusty old creationist horseshit. Publish your research paper. Get back to me when it is published. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, dick head, something else you should read so you won't be such a religious fanatic about natural selection, you disingenuous fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Darwin Didn't Know
> 
> 
> Today's scientists marvel that the 19th-century naturalist's grand vision of evolution is still the key to life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, i don't see any modern scientific theories about how cells and their mechanisms were formed in any of your blubbering. Nor will i, because there is only one, and it is accepted fact.. Like i said....spam masturbation mode....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not the one who made the claim, dick head.  You did.  A claim you can't back up and makes no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cry it all out ding.
> 
> Now, what is the alternative explanation to be found in the global scientific community?
> 
> You will never answer. Because an answer does not exist, unless you lie and make one up. So you may squirt yourself when you ridicule me for repeating what scientists have learned and think is fact, but you are also ridiculing all of them. Which makes you just another crazy person on the corner with a sandwich board sign and a bullhorn, pestering normal people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This shit ain't random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly right. Selection is precisely NOT random. I feel like i taught you something today.
Click to expand...

Not quite.  Nature has a preference.  I taught you something.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you made a claim you can't back up.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course i can. How absurd. Its literally the basis of all biology. Nor have you offered any other reason the scientific community posits for the formation of cells amd their workings. You cant, because there isn't any. You can go into ding masturbation spam mode now, and stay there all night, and you will have made no progress in the morning. Sorry.
> 
> Don't waste my time with this dusty old creationist horseshit. Publish your research paper. Get back to me when it is published. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, dick head, something else you should read so you won't be such a religious fanatic about natural selection, you disingenuous fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Darwin Didn't Know
> 
> 
> Today's scientists marvel that the 19th-century naturalist's grand vision of evolution is still the key to life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, i don't see any modern scientific theories about how cells and their mechanisms were formed in any of your blubbering. Nor will i, because there is only one, and it is accepted fact.. Like i said....spam masturbation mode....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not the one who made the claim, dick head.  You did.  A claim you can't back up and makes no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cry it all out ding.
> 
> Now, what is the alternative explanation to be found in the global scientific community?
> 
> You will never answer. Because an answer does not exist, unless you lie and make one up. So you may squirt yourself when you ridicule me for repeating what scientists have learned and think is fact, but you are also ridiculing all of them. Which makes you just another crazy person on the corner with a sandwich board sign and a bullhorn, pestering normal people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This shit ain't random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly right. Selection is precisely NOT random. I feel like i taught you something today.
Click to expand...

These micro machines exist because they were hardwired to exist through the laws of nature.


----------



## ding

Complexification is part of the fabric of existence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Not quite. Nature has a preference.


Which would mean, not random. Are you going to be my assistant all evening?


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:
			
		

> *Did you have a real argument and forgot to make it or did you start to make a real argument and lost your way?*


*I DESTROYED you on PAGE 8 here several times. 
(everyone look!)
Made you go one-line gibberish in post after post.
Here's one. Remember?*




Ringtone said:


> ..
> 
> *So Darwin proved that naturalism is true, eh?  When did he do that?  Link?*


Darwin, and a subsequent LANDSLIDE of EVIDENCE: Yes.

Wiki:

*Contents*

1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1 Genetics
1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry

2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 Vestigial structures
2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy

3 Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples from paleontology

4 Evidence from biogeography
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.3 Ring species
4.4 Specific examples from biogeography

5 Evidence from selection
5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
5.2 Invertebrates
5.3 Microbes
5.4 Plants and fungi
5.5 Vertebrates

6 Evidence from speciation
6.1 Fossils
6.2 Invertebrates
6.3 Plants
6.4 Vertebrates

7 Evidence from coloration
7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
7.2 Camouflage

8 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
9 See also
10 References
11 Sources
12 External links

`


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asexual reproduction is not uncommon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite common, but sexual reproduction couldn't have just popped into existence by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed you were trying to convert anyone. I wrote you were proselytizing. You’re a salesman. Instead of hawking used chevy’s, you’re hawking your version of the gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think proelytizing means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "... sexual reproduction couldn't have popped into existence by itself''
> You forgot to append ''because I say so''.
> 
> It's an odd dynamic with the hyper-religious. They insist their gods can pop into existence by themselves and then these gods can pop all of existence into creation... like magic, but biological organisms can't reproduce.
> 
> Why do you bring your hard-sell brand of proselytizing into a science forum?
Click to expand...


You and your kind are losing badly as it's not what I say, but what the cells and sexual reproduction says.  It's too complicated at the simplest levels for the lies and fake science proselytizing of atheist scientists.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You and your kind are losing badly


Um...we are on the side of literally every scientist and science course in the world. Outside of your religious magical incantation meetings, you are a laughingstock. Better check that scoreboard again....


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be jealous when it was a creationist who used microscopes and discovered the cells.
> 
> 
> 
> And did so by setting aside your preferred magical horseshit. When we learn things, we only do so by setting aside iron aged mythology and especially your self soothing, embarrassing lies.
Click to expand...


C'mon, you can't even explain what happens with the simplest of cells.  You can't even watch a basic video and explain what is happening.  Why?  ToE and Darwinism isn't very practical.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and your kind are losing badly
> 
> 
> 
> Um...we are on the side of literally every scientist and science course in the world. Outside of your religious magical incantation meetings, you are a laughingstock. Better check that scoreboard again....
Click to expand...


Sure, they are.  What can one do with ToE?  Not much beyond natural selection (which was created by God).  Even the Mars rover expeditions have been colossal failures.  We taxpayers paid billions to name rocks.  What else have you done with evolution, but make up fairy tales using fossils and erroneous long times?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> C'mon, you can't even explain what happens with the simplest of cells.



See, this is your magical religious hooha culture handicapping you again. In your magical ritual circles, things are true because the child molester in the fancy outfit says they are true. But that is not how science works. So what i had for breakfast has no bearing on anything, and you sound like a whiny idiot.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and your kind are losing badly
> 
> 
> 
> Um...we are on the side of literally every scientist and science course in the world. Outside of your religious magical incantation meetings, you are a laughingstock. Better check that scoreboard again....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, they are.  What can one do with ToE?  Not much beyond natural selection (which was created by God).  Even the Mars rover expeditions have been colossal failures.  We taxpayers paid billions to name rocks.  What else have you done with evolution, but make up fairy tales using fossils and erroneous long times?
Click to expand...

So your god is capable of making the entire universe, but not capable of creating evolution. Fascinating. Its almost as if you just say whatever sounds nice at any given time, with no regard to integrity or consistency.

Bond, spare us the dog and pony show. Your ONLY basis for your objections is your belief in iron aged myths in your plagiarized iron aged handbook. Any other reason you give is a lie. Lies make Baby Jesus cry, liar.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. Nature has a preference.
> 
> 
> 
> Which would mean, not random. Are you going to be my assistant all evening?
Click to expand...

I think you are going to be mine.

Not random, with purpose.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. Nature has a preference.
> 
> 
> 
> Which would mean, not random. Are you going to be my assistant all evening?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are going to be mine.
> 
> Not random, with purpose.
Click to expand...

Ah, ding licks the wounds. Thread spamming, declaration of victory, and discussion of my credentials, forthcoming...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Not random, with purpose.


Magical nonsense for people who believe in sky daddies.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. Nature has a preference.
> 
> 
> 
> Which would mean, not random. Are you going to be my assistant all evening?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are going to be mine.
> 
> Not random, with purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, ding licks the wounds. Thread spamming, declaration of victory, and discussion of my credentials, forthcoming...
Click to expand...

Not evolving randomly but with purpose to create intelligence.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not random, with purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> Magical nonsense for people who believe in sky daddies.
Click to expand...

No.  Reality.  Intelligence is written into the fabric of existence.  The necessity was to create intelligence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Not evolving randomly but with purpose to create intelligence.


Maybe...? Anyone who claims to know that for a fact is a liar. 

And, as always, feel free to sprinkle, "My gods did that!" on anything you like. It affects nothing. It adds no knowledge and yields no useful predictions, nor does it hinder scientific study. It's useless garnish, like paprika. But if it pleases you, then knock yourself out.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asexual reproduction is not uncommon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite common, but sexual reproduction couldn't have just popped into existence by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed you were trying to convert anyone. I wrote you were proselytizing. You’re a salesman. Instead of hawking used chevy’s, you’re hawking your version of the gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think proelytizing means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "... sexual reproduction couldn't have popped into existence by itself''
> You forgot to append ''because I say so''.
> 
> It's an odd dynamic with the hyper-religious. They insist their gods can pop into existence by themselves and then these gods can pop all of existence into creation... like magic, but biological organisms can't reproduce.
> 
> Why do you bring your hard-sell brand of proselytizing into a science forum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and your kind are losing badly as it's not what I say, but what the cells and sexual reproduction says.  It's too complicated at the simplest levels for the lies and fake science proselytizing of atheist scientists.
Click to expand...

I note that you're angry and emotive. 

"It's too complicated'' is something of a mantra among the ID'iot creationers. Yet, as we see with regularity, these sane ID'iot creationers are the least educated in the sciences they hope to diminish.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not evolving randomly but with purpose to create intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe...? Anyone who claims to know that for a fact is a liar.
> 
> And, as always, feel free to sprinkle, "My gods did that!" on anything you like. It affects nothing. It adds no knowledge and yields no useful predictions, nor does it hinder scientific study. It's useless garnish, like paprika. But if it pleases you, then knock yourself out.
Click to expand...

The forces driving the not random, purposeful evolution of molecules are the laws of nature itself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> The forces driving the not random, purposeful evolution of molecules are the laws of nature itself.


Agreed. That's why there are no stars that are cubes, and why water molecules are always the same shape: selection by natural laws.


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> .......


So you already lost on ODDS because your Failed to be able to enumerate the amount of chances there were to overcome them.
Also, as I said, even your simpleton math was wrong because of molecular tendencies.

Rational Wiki
*Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)*
​"...Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does _not_ justify confecting whatever explanation one would prefer. The inexplicable is just that, and does _not_ justify speculation as proof.​​*Sometimes creationists compute the astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so. They gloss over the fact that chemical laws trim most of the extraneous possibilities away.* For instance, there are many ways to theoretically arrange hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in a molecule, but in reality, most of what forms is H2O. Note that the creationist's fundamental error is not his ignorance of this fact, but the assumption that there is nothing more to know.".."​




__





						Argument from incredulity
					

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen or does not exist because they cannot personally understand the workings.




					rationalwiki.org
				





`


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......
> 
> 
> 
> So you already lost on ODDS because your Failed to be able to enumerate the amount of chances there were to overcome them.
> Also, as I said, even your simpleton math was wrong because of molecular tendencies.
> 
> Rational Wiki
> *Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)*
> ​"...Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does _not_ justify confecting whatever explanation one would prefer. The inexplicable is just that, and does _not_ justify speculation as proof.​​*Sometimes creationists compute the astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so. They gloss over the fact that chemical laws trim most of the extraneous possibilities away.* For instance, there are many ways to theoretically arrange hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in a molecule, but in reality, most of what forms is H2O. Note that the creationist's fundamental error is not his ignorance of this fact, but the assumption that there is nothing more to know.".."​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Argument from incredulity
> 
> 
> The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen or does not exist because they cannot personally understand the workings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rationalwiki.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...


You keep making the same losing argument: there was a first cell, therefore Evolution!  Random stuff bumping together!! We know that the random stuff beat the odds, even if its a number with a million zeros to 1, because there was a first cell, are we're right!


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> Darwin, and a subsequent LANDSLIDE of EVIDENCE: Yes.
> 
> Wiki:
> 
> *Contents*
> 
> 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 1.1 Genetics
> 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 
> 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
> 2.1 Atavisms
> 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
> 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
> 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
> 2.5 Vestigial structures
> 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
> 
> 3 Evidence from paleontology
> 3.1 Fossil record
> 3.2 Limitations
> 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
> 
> 4 Evidence from biogeography
> 4.1 Continental distribution
> 4.2 Island biogeography
> 4.3 Ring species
> 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
> 
> 5 Evidence from selection
> 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
> 5.2 Invertebrates
> 5.3 Microbes
> 5.4 Plants and fungi
> 5.5 Vertebrates
> 
> 6 Evidence from speciation
> 6.1 Fossils
> 6.2 Invertebrates
> 6.3 Plants
> 6.4 Vertebrates
> 
> 7 Evidence from coloration
> 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
> 7.2 Camouflage
> 
> 8 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
> 9 See also
> 10 References
> 11 Sources
> 12 External links
> 
> `




You're claiming that you proved naturalism is true?!  That's weird.


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> *Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)*
> ​​


​
There's no way in hell mere chemistry could have ever produced anything even remotely akin to a living organism.

The only fallacy anywhere in sight is your argument from magic mushrooms.

In the meantime, an informed argument from reality:  *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.   *


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> You're claiming that you proved naturalism is true?!  That's weird.


If by Naturalism you mean Evolution. Yes.
Be glad to embarrass you for another 100 pages.

I KICKED Your ass thru every Pew *Reverend Ringtone.

You and CrusaderFrank need to stop using and pretense of Science and just tell the truth....

You believe in god and not evolution because you were brainwashed as children, and unlike many, weren't smart enough to give up Santa Claus.

That simple, really.

`*


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......
> 
> 
> 
> So you already lost on ODDS because your Failed to be able to enumerate the amount of chances there were to overcome them.
> Also, as I said, even your simpleton math was wrong because of molecular tendencies.
> 
> Rational Wiki
> *Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)*
> ​"...Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does _not_ justify confecting whatever explanation one would prefer. The inexplicable is just that, and does _not_ justify speculation as proof.​​*Sometimes creationists compute the astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so. They gloss over the fact that chemical laws trim most of the extraneous possibilities away.* For instance, there are many ways to theoretically arrange hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in a molecule, but in reality, most of what forms is H2O. Note that the creationist's fundamental error is not his ignorance of this fact, but the assumption that there is nothing more to know.".."​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Argument from incredulity
> 
> 
> The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen or does not exist because they cannot personally understand the workings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rationalwiki.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep making the same losing argument: there was a first cell, therefore Evolution!  Random stuff bumping together!! We know that the random stuff beat the odds, even if its a number with a million zeros to 1, because there was a first cell, are we're right!
Click to expand...


That's really pretty ignorant. Biological evolution is fundamentally not a random process. It's really remarkable that the science illiterate make so much noise about a subject they know nothing about.


Here is the definition of theory from the National Academy of Science:

"Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses."

Read that sentence carefully, and then ask yourself "What part of that definition *excludes* a theory from being a fact?" Look at the definition again...

It's true that not every theory withstands the test of time and goes on to be considered a fact by nearly all of the scientific community, but evolution is one that has. More from the NAS- they say that evolution is "something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong."

So.... now would be a good time to offer that ID'iot creationer ''*General Theory of Super-Magical Creation" *

A'splain us about your various gods and how super-magical means were used to create the flat earth we live on. 

A'splain us the theory of ''The Gawds Did It''


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> You keep making the same losing argument: there was a first cell, therefore Evolution!


Nobody has made that argument ever, you embarrassing liar.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)*
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> There's no way in hell mere chemistry could have ever produced anything even remotely akin to a living organism.
> 
> The only fallacy anywhere in sight is your argument from magic mushrooms.
> 
> In the meantime, an informed argument from reality:  *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.   *
Click to expand...


"_There's no way in hell mere chemistry could have ever produced anything even remotely akin to a living organism_''. 

".... _because I say so_''

"I _have no data, no rational explanation, no argument to support ''because I say so_'', _its just.... "because I say so''_


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)*
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> There's no way in hell mere chemistry could have ever produced anything even remotely akin to a living organism.
> 
> The only fallacy anywhere in sight is your argument from magic mushrooms.
> 
> In the meantime, an informed argument from reality:  *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.   *
Click to expand...

A cavalcade of plagiarized William Lane Craig nonsense.


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> If by Naturalism you mean Evolution. Yes.



No.  I mean _naturalism_.  Period.



abu afak said:


> Be glad to embarrass you for another 100 pages.
> 
> I KICKED Your ass thru every Pew *Reverend Ringtone.*




You haven't laid so much as a glove on me, tough guy.  * 



abu afak said:



			You and CrusaderFrank need to stop using and pretense of Science and just tell the truth....

You believe in god and not evolution because you were brainwashed as children, and unlike many, weren't smart enough to give up Santa Claus.

That simple, really.
		
Click to expand...

*
Whatever you say Reverend Magic Shrooms, but arguments from ad hominem and ignorance do not impress.  Mere chemistry does not even begin to account for the myriad, complex organic compounds of living organisms, let alone alone account for their subsequent structures.

My observations stand and stay:  *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism**.*


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)*
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> There's no way in hell mere chemistry could have ever produced anything even remotely akin to a living organism.
> 
> The only fallacy anywhere in sight is your argument from magic mushrooms.
> 
> In the meantime, an informed argument from reality:  *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A cavalcade of plagiarized William Lane Craig nonsense.
Click to expand...


Calm down, Karen.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)*
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> There's no way in hell mere chemistry could have ever produced anything even remotely akin to a living organism.
> 
> The only fallacy anywhere in sight is your argument from magic mushrooms.
> 
> In the meantime, an informed argument from reality:  *Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A cavalcade of plagiarized William Lane Craig nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calm down, Karen.
Click to expand...


Laughing at your silly attempts at arguments you can't defend.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces driving the not random, purposeful evolution of molecules are the laws of nature itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. That's why there are no stars that are cubes, and why water molecules are always the same shape: selection by natural laws.
Click to expand...

And why life and intelligence exist as well.

It's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence.


----------



## Mindful

fncceo said:


> America was founded not, as other nation states, by a violent king looking to carve out a kingdom, but by wise men with a vision of an enlightened country, the most free in all the world.



Aided by the perfidious French.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep making the same losing argument: there was a first cell, therefore Evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has made that argument ever, you embarrassing liar.
Click to expand...




abu afak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're claiming that you proved naturalism is true?!  That's weird.
> 
> 
> 
> If by Naturalism you mean Evolution. Yes.
> Be glad to embarrass you for another 100 pages.
> 
> I KICKED Your ass thru every Pew *Reverend Ringtone.
> 
> You and CrusaderFrank need to stop using and pretense of Science and just tell the truth....
> 
> You believe in god and not evolution because you were brainwashed as children, and unlike many, weren't smart enough to give up Santa Claus.
> 
> That simple, really.
> 
> `*
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep making the same losing argument: there was a first cell, therefore Evolution!
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has made that argument ever, you embarrassing liar.
Click to expand...

Do you stand by your assertion that life first "evolved" on Earth by random collisions?


----------



## Blues Man

I try not to talk to evangelicals about anything.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Laughing at your silly attempts at arguments you can't defend.



Hey, I know, why don't you, Toddsterpatriot, toobfreak, abu afak and Fort Fun Indiana tell us again that instances of abiogenesis are events that could actually be observed or demonstrated someday.  That was a real hoot!


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible


No, as I said several times but you are too dim to understand..
or rather refuse to acknowledge because you have NO OTHER points..

*You already lost on ODDS because your Failed to be able to enumerate the amount of chances there were to overcome them.
Also, as I said, even your simpleton math was wrong because of molecular tendencies.*

Rational Wiki
*Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)*

"...Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does _not_ justify confecting whatever explanation one would prefer. The inexplicable is just that, and does _not_ justify speculation as proof.

*Sometimes creationists compute the astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so. They gloss over the fact that chemical laws trim most of the extraneous possibilities away.* For instance, there are many ways to theoretically arrange hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in a molecule, but in reality, most of what forms is H2O. Note that the creationist's fundamental error is not his ignorance of this fact, but the assumption that there is nothing more to know.".."

*Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki*







 rationalwiki.org


`


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible
> 
> 
> 
> No, as I said several times but you are too dim to understand..
> or rather refuse to acknowledge because you have NO OTHER points..
> 
> *You already lost on ODDS because your Failed to be able to enumerate the amount of chances there were to overcome them.
> Also, as I said, even your simpleton math was wrong because of molecular tendencies.*
> 
> Rational Wiki
> *Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)*
> 
> "...Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does _not_ justify confecting whatever explanation one would prefer. The inexplicable is just that, and does _not_ justify speculation as proof.
> 
> *Sometimes creationists compute the astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so. They gloss over the fact that chemical laws trim most of the extraneous possibilities away.* For instance, there are many ways to theoretically arrange hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in a molecule, but in reality, most of what forms is H2O. Note that the creationist's fundamental error is not his ignorance of this fact, but the assumption that there is nothing more to know.".."
> 
> *Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rationalwiki.org
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...


Is it your supposition that cells were created by random interactions of their component parts, yes or no?


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible
> 
> 
> 
> No, as I said several times but you are too dim to understand..
> or rather refuse to acknowledge because you have NO OTHER points..
> 
> *You already lost on ODDS because your Failed to be able to enumerate the amount of chances there were to overcome them.
> Also, as I said, even your simpleton math was wrong because of molecular tendencies.*
> 
> Rational Wiki
> *Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)*
> 
> "...Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does _not_ justify confecting whatever explanation one would prefer. The inexplicable is just that, and does _not_ justify speculation as proof.
> 
> *Sometimes creationists compute the astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so. They gloss over the fact that chemical laws trim most of the extraneous possibilities away.* For instance, there are many ways to theoretically arrange hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in a molecule, but in reality, most of what forms is H2O. Note that the creationist's fundamental error is not his ignorance of this fact, but the assumption that there is nothing more to know.".."
> 
> *Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rationalwiki.org
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...



Hey, why don't you, Toddsterpatriot, toobfreak and Fort Fun Indiana tell us again that instances of abiogenesis are events that could actually be observed or demonstrated someday.  That was a real hoot!


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> *
> I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible.*


And of course you posted no odds on a god because there are none.
Unlike abiogenesis and Evo, there is no evidence there is a god, no pre-existing raw material, no odds of ... NOTHING. 

`


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible.*
> 
> 
> 
> And of course you posted no odds on a god because there are none.
> Unlike abiogenesis and Evo, there is no evidence there is a god, no pre-existing raw material, no odds of ... NOTHING.
> 
> `
Click to expand...


Is it your supposition that cells were created by random interactions of their component parts, yes or no?


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible.*
> 
> 
> 
> And of course you posted no odds on a god because there are none.
> Unlike abiogenesis and Evo, there is no evidence there is a god, no pre-existing raw material, no odds of ... NOTHING.
> 
> `
Click to expand...


What's the evidence for abiogenesis?  

Hey, I know, why don't you tell us again about how feats of biochemical engineering in the laboratory entailing organic compounds harvested from living organisms proves abiogenesis again.  That was good for a hoot!


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laughing at your silly attempts at arguments you can't defend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I know, why don't you, Toddsterpatriot, toobfreak, abu afak and Fort Fun Indiana tell us again that instances of abiogenesis are events that could actually be observed or demonstrated someday.  That was a real hoot!
Click to expand...

There was only one instance of abiogenesis required to begin the process of evolution. There may have been hundreds or thousands, maybe millions of instances that didn't lead to successful development of life. However, we know with certainty that one of those instances was successful. I'll note that you are a science / evolution denier so why don't you sp'lain us how your gods magically created all of existence 6,000 years ago. We can compare facts and evidence about the natural world vs. your alleged supernatural realms.

The exact processes of abiogenesis are unknown, but investigating the unknown is what science is all about. Theory and testing is part of the process. As long as the theory can be tested,  scientific testing can proceed. Much scientific work has been done in testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis. As your alternative involves magic performed by the gods, Shirley, you must have a testable hypothesis you can offer. You have that, right? Otherwise, you're simply and mindlessly requiring others to accept your "... because I say so" claims to three gods vs others who have similar claims to magical creation stories involving competing gods.

Why would you expect anyone to accept your unsupported claims to magic, supernaturalism and silly tales / fables that include talking serpents, a flat earth, etc. when you offer nothing to support your specious, empty claims?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible.*
> 
> 
> 
> And of course you posted no odds on a god because there are none.
> Unlike abiogenesis and Evo, there is no evidence there is a god, no pre-existing raw material, no odds of ... NOTHING.
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the evidence for abiogenesis?
> 
> Hey, I know, why don't you tell us again about how feats of biochemical engineering in the laboratory entailing organic compounds harvested from living organisms proves abiogenesis again.  That was good for a hoot!
Click to expand...

What is the evidence for abiogenesis? Life obviously exists. We, (thinking humans as opposed to ID'iot creationers), have indisputable evidence that biological organisms evolve over time. We know the planet is billions of years old, not merely 6,000 years old. You will find the above introduces irreconcilable conflicts with your fundamentalist religious beliefs but your beliefs in magic and supernaturalism do not supercede contingent reality. 

Why are we still waiting for that ID'iot creationer "*General Theory of This is How The Gawds Did It"*


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> What's the evidence for abiogenesis?
> 
> Hey, I know, why don't you tell us again about how feats of biochemical engineering in the laboratory entailing organic compounds harvested from living organisms proves abiogenesis again.  That was good for a hoot!


The evidence is of course circumstantial, in that, UNLIKE 'god/s,' all the raw materials for life at least existed, and many had tendencies to form bonds of various lengths.

FO god/s you have NOTHING. Just thousands of Myths/'gods of the closing Gaps'.. the vast majority already explained away.

`


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, you can't even explain what happens with the simplest of cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is your magical religious hooha culture handicapping you again. In your magical ritual circles, things are true because the child molester in the fancy outfit says they are true. But that is not how science works. So what i had for breakfast has no bearing on anything, and you sound like a whiny idiot.
Click to expand...


I think you lost the argument and are crying like a baby (what you say makes no sense).  It's not every day one's worldview is crushed to dust over a simple cell.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So your god is capable of making the entire universe, but not capable of creating evolution. Fascinating. Its almost as if you just say whatever sounds nice at any given time, with no regard to integrity or consistency.



No need to create evolution when God created everything perfectly in seven days (this was heaven until sin came into being) and Earth is young.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> nd discussion of my credentials, forthcoming...



Lol.  Credentials?  Now, you're making up even more fairy tales besides evolutionary ones.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> And why life and intelligence exist as well.


Absolutely. All produced by selection, just like everything else we observe in the universe. 




ding said:


> It's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence


Says you. But that is the luxury magical thinkers have with magical ideas, since the magic you sprinkle on top of our knowledge is useless and has no bearing on our knowledge. So sprinkle away...it has zero effect but to make you feel good.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I think you lost the argument


You think i lost the argument over the truth of evolution? Then you are a delusional moron with no attachment to reality.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible


Same goes for you. You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, you can't even explain what happens with the simplest of cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is your magical religious hooha culture handicapping you again. In your magical ritual circles, things are true because the child molester in the fancy outfit says they are true. But that is not how science works. So what i had for breakfast has no bearing on anything, and you sound like a whiny idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you lost the argument and are crying like a baby (what you say makes no sense).  It's not every day one's worldview is crushed to dust over a simple cell.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your god is capable of making the entire universe, but not capable of creating evolution. Fascinating. Its almost as if you just say whatever sounds nice at any given time, with no regard to integrity or consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to create evolution when God created everything perfectly in seven days (this was heaven until sin came into being) and Earth is young.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> nd discussion of my credentials, forthcoming...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  Credentials?  Now, you're making up even more fairy tales besides evolutionary ones.
Click to expand...

Your gods created everything perfectly? That’s another version of the silly “fine tuning” argument test ID’iot creationers use.

How “perfect” that your gods created the cancer cell, the perfect creation of the rotation of the planet and convection currents that cause tornadoes and hurricanes, the perfect creation of plate tectonics that cause earthquakes and tidal waves. That perfect creation of fragile DNA which is subject to damage by radiation from the perfect creation of the sun.

Gee whiz. It actually seems that your gods are remarkably incompetent designers. Did they not get any instruction from the hierarchy of gods who came before your gods?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why life and intelligence exist as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. All produced by selection, just like everything else we observe in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says you. But that is the luxury magical thinkers have with magical ideas, since the magic you sprinkle on top of our knowledge is useless and has no bearing on our knowledge. So sprinkle away...it has zero effect but to make you feel good.
Click to expand...

You mean the laws of nature which predestined intelligence to arise.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> You mean the laws of nature which predestined intelligence to arise.


No, that's what you mean. Make your own points.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, you can't even explain what happens with the simplest of cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is your magical religious hooha culture handicapping you again. In your magical ritual circles, things are true because the child molester in the fancy outfit says they are true. But that is not how science works. So what i had for breakfast has no bearing on anything, and you sound like a whiny idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you lost the argument and are crying like a baby (what you say makes no sense).  It's not every day one's worldview is crushed to dust over a simple cell.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your god is capable of making the entire universe, but not capable of creating evolution. Fascinating. Its almost as if you just say whatever sounds nice at any given time, with no regard to integrity or consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to create evolution when God created everything perfectly in seven days (this was heaven until sin came into being) and Earth is young.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> nd discussion of my credentials, forthcoming...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  Credentials?  Now, you're making up even more fairy tales besides evolutionary ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your gods created everything perfectly? That’s another version of the silly “fine tuning” argument test ID’iot creationers use.
> 
> How “perfect” that your gods created the cancer cell, the perfect creation of the rotation of the planet and convection currents that cause tornadoes and hurricanes, the perfect creation of plate tectonics that cause earthquakes and tidal waves. That perfect creation of fragile DNA which is subject to damage by radiation from the perfect creation of the sun.
> 
> Gee whiz. It actually seems that your gods are remarkably incompetent designers. Did they not get any instruction from the hierarchy of gods who came before your gods?
Click to expand...

WHY DO POLAR BEARS HAVE WHITE HAIR?!?! HMM?!?!?!

therefore gawd


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the laws of nature which predestined intelligence to arise.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what you mean. Make your own points.
Click to expand...

I did already.  The very fabric of existence is such that life and intelligence was predestined to arise.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the laws of nature which predestined intelligence to arise.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what you mean. Make your own points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did already.  The very fabric of existence is such that life and intelligence was predestined to arise.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But that still doesn't imply any intelligent design.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the laws of nature which predestined intelligence to arise.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what you mean. Make your own points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did already.  The very fabric of existence is such that life and intelligence was predestined to arise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe. But that still doesn't imply any intelligent design.
Click to expand...

Not intelligent design.  Intelligence.  Mind has always existed as the source of reality.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you lost the argument
> 
> 
> 
> You think i lost the argument over the truth of evolution? Then you are a delusional moron with no attachment to reality.
Click to expand...


Correction.  It's your BELIEF in the truth of evolution.

All you have is ad hominem attacks, so it goes to show who lost.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> WHY DO POLAR BEARS HAVE WHITE HAIR?!?! HMM?!?!?!
> 
> therefore gawd



Sure, I told ya that God created natural selection.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, you can't even explain what happens with the simplest of cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is your magical religious hooha culture handicapping you again. In your magical ritual circles, things are true because the child molester in the fancy outfit says they are true. But that is not how science works. So what i had for breakfast has no bearing on anything, and you sound like a whiny idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you lost the argument and are crying like a baby (what you say makes no sense).  It's not every day one's worldview is crushed to dust over a simple cell.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your god is capable of making the entire universe, but not capable of creating evolution. Fascinating. Its almost as if you just say whatever sounds nice at any given time, with no regard to integrity or consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to create evolution when God created everything perfectly in seven days (this was heaven until sin came into being) and Earth is young.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> nd discussion of my credentials, forthcoming...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  Credentials?  Now, you're making up even more fairy tales besides evolutionary ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your gods created everything perfectly? That’s another version of the silly “fine tuning” argument test ID’iot creationers use.
> 
> How “perfect” that your gods created the cancer cell, the perfect creation of the rotation of the planet and convection currents that cause tornadoes and hurricanes, the perfect creation of plate tectonics that cause earthquakes and tidal waves. That perfect creation of fragile DNA which is subject to damage by radiation from the perfect creation of the sun.
> 
> Gee whiz. It actually seems that your gods are remarkably incompetent designers. Did they not get any instruction from the hierarchy of gods who came before your gods?
Click to expand...


>>How “perfect” that your gods created the cancer cell,<<

Not God.  I think Satan who has the power of death created the cancer cell.  Pretty awful way to die.

God put fine tuning parameters for life on Earth and in the universe for a reason and humans discovered it.  It means no abiogenesis.

You keep getting things wrong and messing up.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, you can't even explain what happens with the simplest of cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is your magical religious hooha culture handicapping you again. In your magical ritual circles, things are true because the child molester in the fancy outfit says they are true. But that is not how science works. So what i had for breakfast has no bearing on anything, and you sound like a whiny idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you lost the argument and are crying like a baby (what you say makes no sense).  It's not every day one's worldview is crushed to dust over a simple cell.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your god is capable of making the entire universe, but not capable of creating evolution. Fascinating. Its almost as if you just say whatever sounds nice at any given time, with no regard to integrity or consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to create evolution when God created everything perfectly in seven days (this was heaven until sin came into being) and Earth is young.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> nd discussion of my credentials, forthcoming...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  Credentials?  Now, you're making up even more fairy tales besides evolutionary ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your gods created everything perfectly? That’s another version of the silly “fine tuning” argument test ID’iot creationers use.
> 
> How “perfect” that your gods created the cancer cell, the perfect creation of the rotation of the planet and convection currents that cause tornadoes and hurricanes, the perfect creation of plate tectonics that cause earthquakes and tidal waves. That perfect creation of fragile DNA which is subject to damage by radiation from the perfect creation of the sun.
> 
> Gee whiz. It actually seems that your gods are remarkably incompetent designers. Did they not get any instruction from the hierarchy of gods who came before your gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>How “perfect” that your gods created the cancer cell,<<
> 
> Not God.  I think Satan who has the power of death created the cancer cell.  Pretty awful way to die.
> 
> God put fine tuning parameters for life on Earth and in the universe for a reason and humans discovered it.  It means no abiogenesis.
> 
> You keep getting things wrong and messing up.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. So you’re modifying “the gods created all of existence” meme with “well, the gods didn’t really create all of existence as the Satan god was subcontracting”.

I suppose that would explain how weak and inept your gods are as “creators”. The gods in the hierarchy of gods above your gods realized your gods needed remedial help on the design department.

You didn’t address why your designer gods were so inept in the fine tuning elements of life on earth. What, exactly, is perfect about supernatural creation considering the rotation of the planet and convection currents that cause tornadoes and hurricanes, the perfect creation of plate tectonics that cause earthquakes and tidal waves. That perfect creation of fragile DNA which is subject to damage by solar radiation.

Your god’s tuning parameters are rather incompetent and amateurish. Did your gods perhaps flunk out of designer gods school?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Not intelligent design. Intelligence.


And the difference is...? By the way, both are madeup nonsense.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Sure, I told ya that God created natural selection.


And also told me natural selection did not produce the diversity of species. You are incoherent.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not intelligent design. Intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> And the difference is...? By the way, both are madeup nonsense.
Click to expand...

That's already been answered in this thread somewhere.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not intelligent design. Intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> And the difference is...? By the way, both are madeup nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's already been answered in this thread somewhere.
Click to expand...

As i said... No problem lying, when it suits you. The jihadi way.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not intelligent design. Intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> And the difference is...? By the way, both are madeup nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's already been answered in this thread somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As i said... No problem lying, when it suits you. The jihadi way.
Click to expand...

I am good with you seeing me that way.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The odds against the organelles forming perfectly and perfectly encasing a nucleus with a perfectly formed DNA strand are, well, must be a number with 40 million zeros after it.

I don't know who did it, I just know that it wasn't _random_


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> I don't know who did it, I just know that it wasn't _random_


Well congrats, you just caught up to a high school science course, which teaches the fact that selection is not random.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who did it, I just know that it wasn't _random_
> 
> 
> 
> Well congrats, you just caught up to a high school science course, which teaches the fact that selection is not random.
Click to expand...


It's not random??? really?  Please explain, I'm fascinated!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Does half a DNA strand make half a cell, you know, as it's randomly getting naturally selected and all?  

Do the organelles randomly get naturally selected to form a cell, then they instruct the DNA?  

Will any Evolutionist "Explain it all"?


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> The odds against the organelles forming perfectly and perfectly encasing a nucleus with a perfectly formed DNA strand are, well, must be a number with 40 million zeros after it.
> 
> I don't know who did it, I just know that it wasn't _random_


The odds against your silly statement being correct are far greater.


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who did it, I just know that it wasn't _random_
> 
> 
> 
> Well congrats, you just caught up to a high school science course, which teaches the fact that selection is not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not random??? really?  Please explain, I'm fascinated!!
Click to expand...

You should take a high school science class.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who did it, I just know that it wasn't _random_
> 
> 
> 
> Well congrats, you just caught up to a high school science course, which teaches the fact that selection is not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not random??? really?  Please explain, I'm fascinated!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should take a high school science class.
Click to expand...


You could have said: I don't know so I'll just toss insults


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who did it, I just know that it wasn't _random_
> 
> 
> 
> Well congrats, you just caught up to a high school science course, which teaches the fact that selection is not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not random??? really?  Please explain, I'm fascinated!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should take a high school science class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could have said: I don't know so I'll just toss insults
Click to expand...

I _do_ know. That’s why I criticized your silly “the odds are too great” comments.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's not random??? really? Please explain, I'm fascinated!!


Correct. Selection isn't random. For example, a colder environment, via selection, will produce species with adaptations suited to colder environments. One trait follows a well known rule: Bergmann's rule.

Francis, this is very basic material regarding evolution. As you did not know this, you should now take a pause and go study up on evolution before commenting again.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> Does half a DNA strand make half a cell, you know, as it's randomly getting naturally selected and all?


This is a reiteration of the old, debunked argument regarding irreducible complexity. Francis, this argument was debunked in the 19th century. Once again you find yourself 150 years behind the material. You do not know enough about this topic to be commenting on it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does half a DNA strand make half a cell, you know, as it's randomly getting naturally selected and all?
> 
> 
> 
> This is a reiteration of the old, debunked argument regarding irreducible complexity. Francis, this argument was debunked in the 19th century. Once again you find yourself 150 years behind the material. You do not know enough about this topic to be commenting on it.
Click to expand...

Debunked? Back when it was believed a cell was amorphous glop in sausage casing?

You're a biological Flat Earther


----------



## ding

I'd ask for evidence for how it was believed a *DNA strand* was subject to natural selection in the *19th century*, but I'm pretty sure Fort Fun Indiana would just say it was already discussed in this thread somewhere and I should find it myself.


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> *I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible*


No.
Several times, with and without Links, I demonstrated you had no clue and merely posted the raw inaccurate 'oidds of success,' WITHOUT posting the chances like had to form that is necessary to conclude any number .
Further:

Reports of the National Center for Science Education
Volume 20, #4
*Creationism and Pseudomathematics*

We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like. Thus they argue that it is irrational to believe that the event in question could have happened naturally (they mean "by chance") without the aid of intelligent design. In some cases, such as the chance formation of habitable planets, one may avoid a technical discussion of the physical processes involved and respond simply by pointing out that the universe is a very big place, containing countless galaxies, stars, and planetary systems, thus providing so much opportunity for the natural occurrence of the event in question that the probability may be quite high that such an event would occur _somewhere_. Furthermore, if the universe is infinite, providing the event with infinitely many chances to occur, then the occurrence of the event is a virtual certainty. Thus creationist probability arguments can often be undermined by pointing out that any event with a probability greater than 0, no matter how low, will be likely to happen if given enough opportunity, and sure to happen if opportunity is unlimited.

This principle is sometimes illustrated with the following thought experiment (of which the reader has probably heard one version or another): Suppose that a monkey, trained to hit the keys of a typewriter one by one in a _truly random fashion_, types forever, producing infinitely many pages of text. No one doubts that the monkey would type page after page of gibberish, but it follows from the above principle that sooner or later the monkey would type all of the works of Shakespeare from beginning to end, without error, solely by accident.

Unfortunately, this result of the thought experiment, and thus the principle itself, is sometimes explicitly rejected by creationists. One way of trying to justify their denial of this principle is by an appeal to what creationists refer to as Borel's single law of chance - a claim made by the French probability theorist Emile Borel. According to creationists, Borel's single law of chance says that any event with a probability lower than 1 in 1050 is so improbable as to be impossible (Kennedy 1980: 57; Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 183; Harber 1998: 33; Mastropaolo 1999: iii). The implication is that, since the origin of life, the evolution of humans, and many other events may have a probability below this limit, they could not possibly have happened by chance no matter how much opportunity there may have been for them to occur.

Thus creationists attempt to protect their probability arguments from our sufficient opportunity principle by invoking this single beloved mathematical law. Borel did in fact propose such a law. However, just as creationists have misrepresented the second law of thermodynamics, so have they misrepresented Borel's law of chance. So what did Borel really mean? Here is an illustration.

*Lightning Strikes - Often!*
Hardly any of us really worries about getting struck by lightning. The probability that any individual will ever be struck by lightning is extremely low. But with so many people in the world, there is ample opportunity for this rare event to happen from time to time. It would be amazing if it _never_ happened; and indeed many of us do know of such an event. Thus there are some highly improbable events that may be rationally expected to happen occasionally.

On the other hand, we can imagine other events (such as a monkey's accidentally typing Shakespeare) that are so improbable that the entire observable universe cannot provide enough opportunity for us rationally to expect the event in question to occur. Any event of this sort that has _any_ probability at all is still possible - it is just that it would be foolish to bet on its occurrence, not only at a particular place or time, but anywhere ever (within the spatial and temporal confines of the observable universe). Borel said that such events, having a probability of no more than roughly 1 in 1050, never occur (Borel 1965: 57). But this law of chance is not _literally_ true, for, as we shall see, such events can and do happen. I think that a more accurate way to say what Borel had in mind is that _in reality_, no such event can _be rationally predicted_ ever to occur.

Unfortunately, because, I suspect, of the carelessness of creationists' research, they have failed to grasp Borel's law and instead have taken his claim at face value - as saying literally that events of such low probabilities cannot possibly occur! For example, according to Scott Huse, "[M]athematicians generally consider any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 1050 as having a zero probability ([that is] it is impossible)" (Huse 1997: 123). So in effect we are told that according to Borel's single law of chance, even if the observable universe did provide unlimited opportunity for their occurrence, such events are just too improbable ever to occur (Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 329-30). It is this claim with which I take issue (as would Borel), for though one need not be learned in mathematics to find the claim questionable, many laypeople, I fear, may find it all too easy to believe.

*All Nonzero Probabilities Are Possible*
The probability of an event is expressed as a real number from 0 to 1; the more probable the event, the higher the number. An event can have only one probability at any time, just as a person at any given time can have only one age. However, anti-evolutionists misconstrue Borel's law of chance to imply the absurdity that low-probability events are assigned 2 different probabilities - their _true_ probability and a probability of 0.

By way of example, suppose that one were to program a computer to generate 100 random digits. There would be 10100 equally likely possible outcomes. The probability of any given outcome would thus be 10-100. Applying the creationist "law of chance", we would have to conclude that any conceivable outcome, because it has a probability less than 1 in 1050, is literally impossible, having no chance of occurring and thus having a probability of 0 (see the Huse quote above). But clearly no event can have a probability of 1 in 10100 _and_ a probability of 0 (unless we think that 1/10100 = 0, which is as false as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5). Moreover, since the conceivable outcomes are what mathematicians call mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, the sum of all their individual probabilities must equal 1, which they cannot do if they are all 0.

Fortunately, one need only carry out this experiment to see the anti-evolutionists' version of this "law of chance" falsified. For surely _some _outcome must be realized when we instruct the computer to select 100 random digits, despite the fact that the calculated probability of each outcome that the computer could produce falls far below the supposed threshold of possibility. (Borel, on the other hand, would say that no_ preconceived_ outcome could be rationally expected to occur, because the probability of successfully guessing the outcome in advance is too low for it to be expected to happen in the real world.) Thus we see that the anti-evolutionist appeal to Borel's law of chance fails to refute the principle that any event with a positive probability, no matter how small, is bound to happen somewhere sometime if given infinitely many chances.
[.......]
[.......]









						Creationism and Pseudomathematics | National Center for Science Education
					

We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like.




					ncse.ngo
				





`


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible*
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> Several times, with and without Links, I demonstrated you had no clue and merely posted the raw inaccurate 'oidds of success,' WITHOUT posting the chances like had to form that is necessary to conclude any number .
> Further:
> 
> Reports of the National Center for Science Education
> Volume 20, #4
> *Creationism and Pseudomathematics*
> 
> We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like. Thus they argue that it is irrational to believe that the event in question could have happened naturally (they mean "by chance") without the aid of intelligent design. In some cases, such as the chance formation of habitable planets, one may avoid a technical discussion of the physical processes involved and respond simply by pointing out that the universe is a very big place, containing countless galaxies, stars, and planetary systems, thus providing so much opportunity for the natural occurrence of the event in question that the probability may be quite high that such an event would occur _somewhere_. Furthermore, if the universe is infinite, providing the event with infinitely many chances to occur, then the occurrence of the event is a virtual certainty. Thus creationist probability arguments can often be undermined by pointing out that any event with a probability greater than 0, no matter how low, will be likely to happen if given enough opportunity, and sure to happen if opportunity is unlimited.
> 
> This principle is sometimes illustrated with the following thought experiment (of which the reader has probably heard one version or another): Suppose that a monkey, trained to hit the keys of a typewriter one by one in a _truly random fashion_, types forever, producing infinitely many pages of text. No one doubts that the monkey would type page after page of gibberish, but it follows from the above principle that sooner or later the monkey would type all of the works of Shakespeare from beginning to end, without error, solely by accident.
> 
> Unfortunately, this result of the thought experiment, and thus the principle itself, is sometimes explicitly rejected by creationists. One way of trying to justify their denial of this principle is by an appeal to what creationists refer to as Borel's single law of chance - a claim made by the French probability theorist Emile Borel. According to creationists, Borel's single law of chance says that any event with a probability lower than 1 in 1050 is so improbable as to be impossible (Kennedy 1980: 57; Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 183; Harber 1998: 33; Mastropaolo 1999: iii). The implication is that, since the origin of life, the evolution of humans, and many other events may have a probability below this limit, they could not possibly have happened by chance no matter how much opportunity there may have been for them to occur.
> 
> Thus creationists attempt to protect their probability arguments from our sufficient opportunity principle by invoking this single beloved mathematical law. Borel did in fact propose such a law. However, just as creationists have misrepresented the second law of thermodynamics, so have they misrepresented Borel's law of chance. So what did Borel really mean? Here is an illustration.
> 
> *Lightning Strikes - Often!*
> Hardly any of us really worries about getting struck by lightning. The probability that any individual will ever be struck by lightning is extremely low. But with so many people in the world, there is ample opportunity for this rare event to happen from time to time. It would be amazing if it _never_ happened; and indeed many of us do know of such an event. Thus there are some highly improbable events that may be rationally expected to happen occasionally.
> 
> On the other hand, we can imagine other events (such as a monkey's accidentally typing Shakespeare) that are so improbable that the entire observable universe cannot provide enough opportunity for us rationally to expect the event in question to occur. Any event of this sort that has _any_ probability at all is still possible - it is just that it would be foolish to bet on its occurrence, not only at a particular place or time, but anywhere ever (within the spatial and temporal confines of the observable universe). Borel said that such events, having a probability of no more than roughly 1 in 1050, never occur (Borel 1965: 57). But this law of chance is not _literally_ true, for, as we shall see, such events can and do happen. I think that a more accurate way to say what Borel had in mind is that _in reality_, no such event can _be rationally predicted_ ever to occur.
> 
> Unfortunately, because, I suspect, of the carelessness of creationists' research, they have failed to grasp Borel's law and instead have taken his claim at face value - as saying literally that events of such low probabilities cannot possibly occur! For example, according to Scott Huse, "[M]athematicians generally consider any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 1050 as having a zero probability ([that is] it is impossible)" (Huse 1997: 123). So in effect we are told that according to Borel's single law of chance, even if the observable universe did provide unlimited opportunity for their occurrence, such events are just too improbable ever to occur (Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 329-30). It is this claim with which I take issue (as would Borel), for though one need not be learned in mathematics to find the claim questionable, many laypeople, I fear, may find it all too easy to believe.
> 
> *All Nonzero Probabilities Are Possible*
> The probability of an event is expressed as a real number from 0 to 1; the more probable the event, the higher the number. An event can have only one probability at any time, just as a person at any given time can have only one age. However, anti-evolutionists misconstrue Borel's law of chance to imply the absurdity that low-probability events are assigned 2 different probabilities - their _true_ probability and a probability of 0.
> 
> By way of example, suppose that one were to program a computer to generate 100 random digits. There would be 10100 equally likely possible outcomes. The probability of any given outcome would thus be 10-100. Applying the creationist "law of chance", we would have to conclude that any conceivable outcome, because it has a probability less than 1 in 1050, is literally impossible, having no chance of occurring and thus having a probability of 0 (see the Huse quote above). But clearly no event can have a probability of 1 in 10100 _and_ a probability of 0 (unless we think that 1/10100 = 0, which is as false as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5). Moreover, since the conceivable outcomes are what mathematicians call mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, the sum of all their individual probabilities must equal 1, which they cannot do if they are all 0.
> 
> Fortunately, one need only carry out this experiment to see the anti-evolutionists' version of this "law of chance" falsified. For surely _some _outcome must be realized when we instruct the computer to select 100 random digits, despite the fact that the calculated probability of each outcome that the computer could produce falls far below the supposed threshold of possibility. (Borel, on the other hand, would say that no_ preconceived_ outcome could be rationally expected to occur, because the probability of successfully guessing the outcome in advance is too low for it to be expected to happen in the real world.) Thus we see that the anti-evolutionist appeal to Borel's law of chance fails to refute the principle that any event with a positive probability, no matter how small, is bound to happen somewhere sometime if given infinitely many chances.
> [.......]
> [.......]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism and Pseudomathematics | National Center for Science Education
> 
> 
> We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ncse.ngo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Does half an "evolved" DNA  make half a cell?

Your psudeo argument breaks down to: we hate the math and reject it because there was a first cell that must surely have evolved despite the odds against it.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, I told ya that God created natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> And also told me natural selection did not produce the diversity of species. You are incoherent.
Click to expand...


Atheists are usually wrong and you demonstrate it in front of all the people here.

Natural selection was created by God.  It "allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds."









						Natural Selection Topic
					

Is natural selection, which uses existing information leading to varations in organisms, proof of information-adding, molecules-to-man evolution?




					answersingenesis.org
				




Can I help it if you don't get it and believe in the fairy tales of evolution?


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> Does half an "evolved" DNA  make half a cell?
> 
> Your psudeo argument breaks down to: we hate the math and reject it because there was a first cell that must surely have evolved despite the odds against it.


RNA could make a proto-cell.
IAC we have and self-replicating non (yet) living molecules.
It was just a matter of time before one somewhere got sparked.

`


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible*
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> Several times, with and without Links, I demonstrated you had no clue and merely posted the raw inaccurate 'oidds of success,' WITHOUT posting the chances like had to form that is necessary to conclude any number .
> Further:
> 
> Reports of the National Center for Science Education
> Volume 20, #4
> *Creationism and Pseudomathematics*
> 
> We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like. Thus they argue that it is irrational to believe that the event in question could have happened naturally (they mean "by chance") without the aid of intelligent design. In some cases, such as the chance formation of habitable planets, one may avoid a technical discussion of the physical processes involved and respond simply by pointing out that the universe is a very big place, containing countless galaxies, stars, and planetary systems, thus providing so much opportunity for the natural occurrence of the event in question that the probability may be quite high that such an event would occur _somewhere_. Furthermore, if the universe is infinite, providing the event with infinitely many chances to occur, then the occurrence of the event is a virtual certainty. Thus creationist probability arguments can often be undermined by pointing out that any event with a probability greater than 0, no matter how low, will be likely to happen if given enough opportunity, and sure to happen if opportunity is unlimited.
> 
> This principle is sometimes illustrated with the following thought experiment (of which the reader has probably heard one version or another): Suppose that a monkey, trained to hit the keys of a typewriter one by one in a _truly random fashion_, types forever, producing infinitely many pages of text. No one doubts that the monkey would type page after page of gibberish, but it follows from the above principle that sooner or later the monkey would type all of the works of Shakespeare from beginning to end, without error, solely by accident.
> 
> Unfortunately, this result of the thought experiment, and thus the principle itself, is sometimes explicitly rejected by creationists. One way of trying to justify their denial of this principle is by an appeal to what creationists refer to as Borel's single law of chance - a claim made by the French probability theorist Emile Borel. According to creationists, Borel's single law of chance says that any event with a probability lower than 1 in 1050 is so improbable as to be impossible (Kennedy 1980: 57; Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 183; Harber 1998: 33; Mastropaolo 1999: iii). The implication is that, since the origin of life, the evolution of humans, and many other events may have a probability below this limit, they could not possibly have happened by chance no matter how much opportunity there may have been for them to occur.
> 
> Thus creationists attempt to protect their probability arguments from our sufficient opportunity principle by invoking this single beloved mathematical law. Borel did in fact propose such a law. However, just as creationists have misrepresented the second law of thermodynamics, so have they misrepresented Borel's law of chance. So what did Borel really mean? Here is an illustration.
> 
> *Lightning Strikes - Often!*
> Hardly any of us really worries about getting struck by lightning. The probability that any individual will ever be struck by lightning is extremely low. But with so many people in the world, there is ample opportunity for this rare event to happen from time to time. It would be amazing if it _never_ happened; and indeed many of us do know of such an event. Thus there are some highly improbable events that may be rationally expected to happen occasionally.
> 
> On the other hand, we can imagine other events (such as a monkey's accidentally typing Shakespeare) that are so improbable that the entire observable universe cannot provide enough opportunity for us rationally to expect the event in question to occur. Any event of this sort that has _any_ probability at all is still possible - it is just that it would be foolish to bet on its occurrence, not only at a particular place or time, but anywhere ever (within the spatial and temporal confines of the observable universe). Borel said that such events, having a probability of no more than roughly 1 in 1050, never occur (Borel 1965: 57). But this law of chance is not _literally_ true, for, as we shall see, such events can and do happen. I think that a more accurate way to say what Borel had in mind is that _in reality_, no such event can _be rationally predicted_ ever to occur.
> 
> Unfortunately, because, I suspect, of the carelessness of creationists' research, they have failed to grasp Borel's law and instead have taken his claim at face value - as saying literally that events of such low probabilities cannot possibly occur! For example, according to Scott Huse, "[M]athematicians generally consider any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 1050 as having a zero probability ([that is] it is impossible)" (Huse 1997: 123). So in effect we are told that according to Borel's single law of chance, even if the observable universe did provide unlimited opportunity for their occurrence, such events are just too improbable ever to occur (Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 329-30). It is this claim with which I take issue (as would Borel), for though one need not be learned in mathematics to find the claim questionable, many laypeople, I fear, may find it all too easy to believe.
> 
> *All Nonzero Probabilities Are Possible*
> The probability of an event is expressed as a real number from 0 to 1; the more probable the event, the higher the number. An event can have only one probability at any time, just as a person at any given time can have only one age. However, anti-evolutionists misconstrue Borel's law of chance to imply the absurdity that low-probability events are assigned 2 different probabilities - their _true_ probability and a probability of 0.
> 
> By way of example, suppose that one were to program a computer to generate 100 random digits. There would be 10100 equally likely possible outcomes. The probability of any given outcome would thus be 10-100. Applying the creationist "law of chance", we would have to conclude that any conceivable outcome, because it has a probability less than 1 in 1050, is literally impossible, having no chance of occurring and thus having a probability of 0 (see the Huse quote above). But clearly no event can have a probability of 1 in 10100 _and_ a probability of 0 (unless we think that 1/10100 = 0, which is as false as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5). Moreover, since the conceivable outcomes are what mathematicians call mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, the sum of all their individual probabilities must equal 1, which they cannot do if they are all 0.
> 
> Fortunately, one need only carry out this experiment to see the anti-evolutionists' version of this "law of chance" falsified. For surely _some _outcome must be realized when we instruct the computer to select 100 random digits, despite the fact that the calculated probability of each outcome that the computer could produce falls far below the supposed threshold of possibility. (Borel, on the other hand, would say that no_ preconceived_ outcome could be rationally expected to occur, because the probability of successfully guessing the outcome in advance is too low for it to be expected to happen in the real world.) Thus we see that the anti-evolutionist appeal to Borel's law of chance fails to refute the principle that any event with a positive probability, no matter how small, is bound to happen somewhere sometime if given infinitely many chances.
> [.......]
> [.......]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism and Pseudomathematics | National Center for Science Education
> 
> 
> We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ncse.ngo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does half an "evolved" DNA  make half a cell?
> 
> Your psudeo argument breaks down to: we hate the math and reject it because there was a first cell that must surely have evolved despite the odds against it.
Click to expand...

See if you can better define the ID’iot creationer argument. What are the odds against development of the first cell?

Firstly, perhaps a crash course in biological evolution might be in order. Evolution does not deal with anything other than living organisms that reproduce and change over time in response to environmental pressures and genetic variables. Evolution does not even deal with the origin of living cells.

So, identify for us how you know that “the odds against cell formation is too great without supernatural intervention”. We can then move on to some more details for you.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, I told ya that God created natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> And also told me natural selection did not produce the diversity of species. You are incoherent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are usually wrong and you demonstrate it in front of all the people here.
> 
> Natural selection was created by God.  It "allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Selection Topic
> 
> 
> Is natural selection, which uses existing information leading to varations in organisms, proof of information-adding, molecules-to-man evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I help it if you don't get it and believe in the fairy tales of evolution?
Click to expand...


“Answers in Genesis”?

Now that’s pretty darn funny.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible*
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> Several times, with and without Links, I demonstrated you had no clue and merely posted the raw inaccurate 'oidds of success,' WITHOUT posting the chances like had to form that is necessary to conclude any number .
> Further:
> 
> Reports of the National Center for Science Education
> Volume 20, #4
> *Creationism and Pseudomathematics*
> 
> We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like. Thus they argue that it is irrational to believe that the event in question could have happened naturally (they mean "by chance") without the aid of intelligent design. In some cases, such as the chance formation of habitable planets, one may avoid a technical discussion of the physical processes involved and respond simply by pointing out that the universe is a very big place, containing countless galaxies, stars, and planetary systems, thus providing so much opportunity for the natural occurrence of the event in question that the probability may be quite high that such an event would occur _somewhere_. Furthermore, if the universe is infinite, providing the event with infinitely many chances to occur, then the occurrence of the event is a virtual certainty. Thus creationist probability arguments can often be undermined by pointing out that any event with a probability greater than 0, no matter how low, will be likely to happen if given enough opportunity, and sure to happen if opportunity is unlimited.
> 
> This principle is sometimes illustrated with the following thought experiment (of which the reader has probably heard one version or another): Suppose that a monkey, trained to hit the keys of a typewriter one by one in a _truly random fashion_, types forever, producing infinitely many pages of text. No one doubts that the monkey would type page after page of gibberish, but it follows from the above principle that sooner or later the monkey would type all of the works of Shakespeare from beginning to end, without error, solely by accident.
> 
> Unfortunately, this result of the thought experiment, and thus the principle itself, is sometimes explicitly rejected by creationists. One way of trying to justify their denial of this principle is by an appeal to what creationists refer to as Borel's single law of chance - a claim made by the French probability theorist Emile Borel. According to creationists, Borel's single law of chance says that any event with a probability lower than 1 in 1050 is so improbable as to be impossible (Kennedy 1980: 57; Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 183; Harber 1998: 33; Mastropaolo 1999: iii). The implication is that, since the origin of life, the evolution of humans, and many other events may have a probability below this limit, they could not possibly have happened by chance no matter how much opportunity there may have been for them to occur.
> 
> Thus creationists attempt to protect their probability arguments from our sufficient opportunity principle by invoking this single beloved mathematical law. Borel did in fact propose such a law. However, just as creationists have misrepresented the second law of thermodynamics, so have they misrepresented Borel's law of chance. So what did Borel really mean? Here is an illustration.
> 
> *Lightning Strikes - Often!*
> Hardly any of us really worries about getting struck by lightning. The probability that any individual will ever be struck by lightning is extremely low. But with so many people in the world, there is ample opportunity for this rare event to happen from time to time. It would be amazing if it _never_ happened; and indeed many of us do know of such an event. Thus there are some highly improbable events that may be rationally expected to happen occasionally.
> 
> On the other hand, we can imagine other events (such as a monkey's accidentally typing Shakespeare) that are so improbable that the entire observable universe cannot provide enough opportunity for us rationally to expect the event in question to occur. Any event of this sort that has _any_ probability at all is still possible - it is just that it would be foolish to bet on its occurrence, not only at a particular place or time, but anywhere ever (within the spatial and temporal confines of the observable universe). Borel said that such events, having a probability of no more than roughly 1 in 1050, never occur (Borel 1965: 57). But this law of chance is not _literally_ true, for, as we shall see, such events can and do happen. I think that a more accurate way to say what Borel had in mind is that _in reality_, no such event can _be rationally predicted_ ever to occur.
> 
> Unfortunately, because, I suspect, of the carelessness of creationists' research, they have failed to grasp Borel's law and instead have taken his claim at face value - as saying literally that events of such low probabilities cannot possibly occur! For example, according to Scott Huse, "[M]athematicians generally consider any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 1050 as having a zero probability ([that is] it is impossible)" (Huse 1997: 123). So in effect we are told that according to Borel's single law of chance, even if the observable universe did provide unlimited opportunity for their occurrence, such events are just too improbable ever to occur (Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 329-30). It is this claim with which I take issue (as would Borel), for though one need not be learned in mathematics to find the claim questionable, many laypeople, I fear, may find it all too easy to believe.
> 
> *All Nonzero Probabilities Are Possible*
> The probability of an event is expressed as a real number from 0 to 1; the more probable the event, the higher the number. An event can have only one probability at any time, just as a person at any given time can have only one age. However, anti-evolutionists misconstrue Borel's law of chance to imply the absurdity that low-probability events are assigned 2 different probabilities - their _true_ probability and a probability of 0.
> 
> By way of example, suppose that one were to program a computer to generate 100 random digits. There would be 10100 equally likely possible outcomes. The probability of any given outcome would thus be 10-100. Applying the creationist "law of chance", we would have to conclude that any conceivable outcome, because it has a probability less than 1 in 1050, is literally impossible, having no chance of occurring and thus having a probability of 0 (see the Huse quote above). But clearly no event can have a probability of 1 in 10100 _and_ a probability of 0 (unless we think that 1/10100 = 0, which is as false as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5). Moreover, since the conceivable outcomes are what mathematicians call mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, the sum of all their individual probabilities must equal 1, which they cannot do if they are all 0.
> 
> Fortunately, one need only carry out this experiment to see the anti-evolutionists' version of this "law of chance" falsified. For surely _some _outcome must be realized when we instruct the computer to select 100 random digits, despite the fact that the calculated probability of each outcome that the computer could produce falls far below the supposed threshold of possibility. (Borel, on the other hand, would say that no_ preconceived_ outcome could be rationally expected to occur, because the probability of successfully guessing the outcome in advance is too low for it to be expected to happen in the real world.) Thus we see that the anti-evolutionist appeal to Borel's law of chance fails to refute the principle that any event with a positive probability, no matter how small, is bound to happen somewhere sometime if given infinitely many chances.
> [.......]
> [.......]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism and Pseudomathematics | National Center for Science Education
> 
> 
> We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ncse.ngo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does half an "evolved" DNA  make half a cell?
> 
> Your psudeo argument breaks down to: we hate the math and reject it because there was a first cell that must surely have evolved despite the odds against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See if you can better define the ID’iot creationer argument. What are the odds against development of the first cell?
> 
> Firstly, perhaps a crash course in biological evolution might be in order. Evolution does not deal with anything other than living organisms that reproduce and change over time in response to environmental pressures and genetic variables. Evolution does not even deal with the origin of living cells.
> 
> So, identify for us how you know that “the odds against cell formation is too great without supernatural intervention”. We can then move on to some more details for you.
Click to expand...


Do you not understand the complexity of a single cell?  It's comprised of thousands of component parts, all of which much work together flawlessly AND it contains a DNA strand itself comprised of thousands of component parts, all of which much work together flawlessly.  

Do you believe that all came together by random molecules colliding together?


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible*
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> Several times, with and without Links, I demonstrated you had no clue and merely posted the raw inaccurate 'oidds of success,' WITHOUT posting the chances like had to form that is necessary to conclude any number .
> Further:
> 
> Reports of the National Center for Science Education
> Volume 20, #4
> *Creationism and Pseudomathematics*
> 
> We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like. Thus they argue that it is irrational to believe that the event in question could have happened naturally (they mean "by chance") without the aid of intelligent design. In some cases, such as the chance formation of habitable planets, one may avoid a technical discussion of the physical processes involved and respond simply by pointing out that the universe is a very big place, containing countless galaxies, stars, and planetary systems, thus providing so much opportunity for the natural occurrence of the event in question that the probability may be quite high that such an event would occur _somewhere_. Furthermore, if the universe is infinite, providing the event with infinitely many chances to occur, then the occurrence of the event is a virtual certainty. Thus creationist probability arguments can often be undermined by pointing out that any event with a probability greater than 0, no matter how low, will be likely to happen if given enough opportunity, and sure to happen if opportunity is unlimited.
> 
> This principle is sometimes illustrated with the following thought experiment (of which the reader has probably heard one version or another): Suppose that a monkey, trained to hit the keys of a typewriter one by one in a _truly random fashion_, types forever, producing infinitely many pages of text. No one doubts that the monkey would type page after page of gibberish, but it follows from the above principle that sooner or later the monkey would type all of the works of Shakespeare from beginning to end, without error, solely by accident.
> 
> Unfortunately, this result of the thought experiment, and thus the principle itself, is sometimes explicitly rejected by creationists. One way of trying to justify their denial of this principle is by an appeal to what creationists refer to as Borel's single law of chance - a claim made by the French probability theorist Emile Borel. According to creationists, Borel's single law of chance says that any event with a probability lower than 1 in 1050 is so improbable as to be impossible (Kennedy 1980: 57; Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 183; Harber 1998: 33; Mastropaolo 1999: iii). The implication is that, since the origin of life, the evolution of humans, and many other events may have a probability below this limit, they could not possibly have happened by chance no matter how much opportunity there may have been for them to occur.
> 
> Thus creationists attempt to protect their probability arguments from our sufficient opportunity principle by invoking this single beloved mathematical law. Borel did in fact propose such a law. However, just as creationists have misrepresented the second law of thermodynamics, so have they misrepresented Borel's law of chance. So what did Borel really mean? Here is an illustration.
> 
> *Lightning Strikes - Often!*
> Hardly any of us really worries about getting struck by lightning. The probability that any individual will ever be struck by lightning is extremely low. But with so many people in the world, there is ample opportunity for this rare event to happen from time to time. It would be amazing if it _never_ happened; and indeed many of us do know of such an event. Thus there are some highly improbable events that may be rationally expected to happen occasionally.
> 
> On the other hand, we can imagine other events (such as a monkey's accidentally typing Shakespeare) that are so improbable that the entire observable universe cannot provide enough opportunity for us rationally to expect the event in question to occur. Any event of this sort that has _any_ probability at all is still possible - it is just that it would be foolish to bet on its occurrence, not only at a particular place or time, but anywhere ever (within the spatial and temporal confines of the observable universe). Borel said that such events, having a probability of no more than roughly 1 in 1050, never occur (Borel 1965: 57). But this law of chance is not _literally_ true, for, as we shall see, such events can and do happen. I think that a more accurate way to say what Borel had in mind is that _in reality_, no such event can _be rationally predicted_ ever to occur.
> 
> Unfortunately, because, I suspect, of the carelessness of creationists' research, they have failed to grasp Borel's law and instead have taken his claim at face value - as saying literally that events of such low probabilities cannot possibly occur! For example, according to Scott Huse, "[M]athematicians generally consider any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 1050 as having a zero probability ([that is] it is impossible)" (Huse 1997: 123). So in effect we are told that according to Borel's single law of chance, even if the observable universe did provide unlimited opportunity for their occurrence, such events are just too improbable ever to occur (Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 329-30). It is this claim with which I take issue (as would Borel), for though one need not be learned in mathematics to find the claim questionable, many laypeople, I fear, may find it all too easy to believe.
> 
> *All Nonzero Probabilities Are Possible*
> The probability of an event is expressed as a real number from 0 to 1; the more probable the event, the higher the number. An event can have only one probability at any time, just as a person at any given time can have only one age. However, anti-evolutionists misconstrue Borel's law of chance to imply the absurdity that low-probability events are assigned 2 different probabilities - their _true_ probability and a probability of 0.
> 
> By way of example, suppose that one were to program a computer to generate 100 random digits. There would be 10100 equally likely possible outcomes. The probability of any given outcome would thus be 10-100. Applying the creationist "law of chance", we would have to conclude that any conceivable outcome, because it has a probability less than 1 in 1050, is literally impossible, having no chance of occurring and thus having a probability of 0 (see the Huse quote above). But clearly no event can have a probability of 1 in 10100 _and_ a probability of 0 (unless we think that 1/10100 = 0, which is as false as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5). Moreover, since the conceivable outcomes are what mathematicians call mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, the sum of all their individual probabilities must equal 1, which they cannot do if they are all 0.
> 
> Fortunately, one need only carry out this experiment to see the anti-evolutionists' version of this "law of chance" falsified. For surely _some _outcome must be realized when we instruct the computer to select 100 random digits, despite the fact that the calculated probability of each outcome that the computer could produce falls far below the supposed threshold of possibility. (Borel, on the other hand, would say that no_ preconceived_ outcome could be rationally expected to occur, because the probability of successfully guessing the outcome in advance is too low for it to be expected to happen in the real world.) Thus we see that the anti-evolutionist appeal to Borel's law of chance fails to refute the principle that any event with a positive probability, no matter how small, is bound to happen somewhere sometime if given infinitely many chances.
> [.......]
> [.......]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism and Pseudomathematics | National Center for Science Education
> 
> 
> We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ncse.ngo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does half an "evolved" DNA  make half a cell?
> 
> Your psudeo argument breaks down to: we hate the math and reject it because there was a first cell that must surely have evolved despite the odds against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See if you can better define the ID’iot creationer argument. What are the odds against development of the first cell?
> 
> Firstly, perhaps a crash course in biological evolution might be in order. Evolution does not deal with anything other than living organisms that reproduce and change over time in response to environmental pressures and genetic variables. Evolution does not even deal with the origin of living cells.
> 
> So, identify for us how you know that “the odds against cell formation is too great without supernatural intervention”. We can then move on to some more details for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not understand the complexity of a single cell?  It's comprised of thousands of component parts, all of which much work together flawlessly AND it contains a DNA strand itself comprised of thousands of component parts, all of which much work together flawlessly.
> 
> Do you believe that all came together by random molecules colliding together?
Click to expand...

“Its too complicated” is the standard ID’iot creationer slogan.

This is where you should cut and paste the standard ID’iot creationer “tornadoes in a junkyard assembling a 747 airliner”, slogan.

Did you know that mechanical parts don’t evolve over time as biological organisms do? Yeah, curious. I could try and explain it to you but it’s, you know, too complicated.

The validity of a scientific model can be expressed to reasonable satisfaction. This can never be done in the face of hyper-religious / ideological opposition, because ideology carries assumed, supernatural causation and refuses facts and evidence.

The standard ID’iot creationer “it’s too complicated” slogan is not an argument. It’s an expression of fear and ignorance. Ultimately, science poses a threat to ID’iot creationer / religious *doctrine* of supernatural creation. It is a struggle between reasoned science and irrational literalism that terrifies the hyper-religious. The doctrine that three Christian gods created all that is, a mere 6,000 years ago is utterly inconsistent with the best of modern science as it is utterly inconsistent with competing versions of gods and supernatural creation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> Debunked?


Correct. The silly argument for irreducible complexity was debunked. That applies to cells, organs, etc. Francis, you are 150 years behind the world.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> I'd ask for evidence for how it was believed a *DNA strand* was subject to natural selection in the *19th century*,


Which would be a typical ding parlor trick. When scientists were done laughing at your lame attempt, they would explain to you that the debunk of the irreducible complexity argument applies on any scale.

Every single day we discover "new complexity" in biology. 100 years from now some future FrancisDing goober will be dancing and prancing on the internet about how scientists in the year 1980 could not have applied it to the discoveries of the year 2020 that they didn't yet know about. Then this future fraud will cite contemporary discoveries and say they breathe new life into the irreducible complexity argument. And scientists will laugh just as hard at this future fraud as they are laugjing at you now. And that charlatan will be just as absurd and make as little progress (zero) in their silly effort as you are right now.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, I told ya that God created natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> And also told me natural selection did not produce the diversity of species. You are incoherent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are usually wrong and you demonstrate it in front of all the people here.
> 
> Natural selection was created by God.  It "allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Selection Topic
> 
> 
> Is natural selection, which uses existing information leading to varations in organisms, proof of information-adding, molecules-to-man evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I help it if you don't get it and believe in the fairy tales of evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Answers in Genesis”?
> 
> Now that’s pretty darn funny.
Click to expand...


Real science, not _funny_ evolution that is only believed by atheist scientists.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Real science, not _funny_ evolution that is only believed by atheist scientists.


Politics doesn't matter only Evidence matters.
*Atheists don't believe in god BECAUSE there is NO evidence you IILLogical Idiot mental patient.
THIS IS the SCIENCE/EVIDENCE section.*
You have none.


`


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, I told ya that God created natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> And also told me natural selection did not produce the diversity of species. You are incoherent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are usually wrong and you demonstrate it in front of all the people here.
> 
> Natural selection was created by God.  It "allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Selection Topic
> 
> 
> Is natural selection, which uses existing information leading to varations in organisms, proof of information-adding, molecules-to-man evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I help it if you don't get it and believe in the fairy tales of evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Answers in Genesis”?
> 
> Now that’s pretty darn funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real science, not _funny_ evolution that is only believed by atheist scientists.
Click to expand...


You make the mistake of believing he Bible is a science text. That’s nonsense.

You make the mistake of claiming that evolution is only believed by atheist scientists. There is no belief required to accept the demonstrated fact of biological evolution.

Religious extremists make the mistake of not understanding the facts they deny.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You make the mistake of believing he Bible is a science text. That’s nonsense.
> 
> You make the mistake of claiming that evolution is only believed by atheist scientists. There is no belief required to accept the demonstrated fact of biological evolution.
> 
> Religious extremists make the mistake of not understanding the facts they deny.



I said it many, many, many times that the Bible isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  That's how I can use it in S&T section.  Besides, we find religion is the basis of our science and that science and religion are opposite sides of the same coin.

The majority of scientists who believe evolution are atheists.  These scientists even changed the rule to majority rules, i.e. consensus rules, when it comes to science.

The truth of biology is natural selection created by God, not evolution by natural selection (lie).  Evolution also involves evolutionary thinking (abiogenesis) and cosmology (singularity) which are lies.

I would state that evolution and atheism are studies that have the religious extremists since they claim that what are lies are the truths and science.  All of it is based on wrong religion and leads to fake science.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real science, not _funny_ evolution that is only believed by atheist scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> Politics doesn't matter only Evidence matters.
> *Atheists don't believe in god BECAUSE there is NO evidence you IILLogical Idiot mental patient.
> THIS IS the SCIENCE/EVIDENCE section.*
> You have none.
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...


The evidence has been presented many, many, many times here such as KCA, animals all having names, global evidence for the power of water and global flood, the names of the geographical layers referring to location and not time, chicken coming before the egg, the swan neck flask experiment, and much more.

Instead, we find that you and your evolution science have no evidence and present the arguments of an illogical mental patient named Darwin.  We are finding no life on Mars now (as well as rest of our solar system) due to no abiogenesis.  Look at what happened with social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler's Nazism, and the Holocaust that was inspired by Charles Darwin.

Yet, you cannot admit you are wrong because of your atheism religion .


----------



## abu afak

> james bond said:
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> James Bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody had to make up the Christian God. It was explained in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> James Bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How else can it be the best selling book year-after-year?
Click to expand...

There is NO evidence.
So you resort to yet ANOTHER of your Fallacies....

*CIRCULAR REASONING*
_circulus in demonstrando_
......


> Description: A type of reasoning in which *the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition*, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.
> This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.
> ......
> Example #2:
> 
> *The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.*
> 
> Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.
> *This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune* -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” *Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail*.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

“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. But I can find no such case.” -Darwin

"There are still many uncertainties and unknowns about JCVI-syn3A, like what the other 8 of 19 new genes do to make cell division happen more naturally. Even of the five genes that have supposedly been linked to cell division, only two genes have known functions. It is still now known how the other five contribute to JCVI-syn3A's consistency during reproduction, but one thing is certain: this tiny genome now represents the new standard for experimentation that could help us characterize just what these genes do inside organisms."

Synthetic bacteria-like 'minimal' cell can now divide and grow like natural cells do- Technology News, Firstpost

Fascinating article on synthesized bacteria-like cells.  With electron microscopes and super computers, we're still only cutting and pasting what already exists.


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> *“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. But I can find no such case.” -Darwin*


AND.. indeed he was right, (Common Descent) confirmed by DNA nearly 100 years later!
and with All other relevant sciences in the explosion of them in the 160 years since.

`


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“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. But I can find no such case.” -Darwin*
> 
> 
> 
> AND.. indeed he was right, confirmed by DNA nearly 100 years later!
> and with All other relevant sciences in the explosion of them in the 160 years since.
> 
> `
Click to expand...


LOL!OL!OLolOlolol OMG I got a fucking soda nosewash!! that was hilarious!!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“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. But I can find no such case.” -Darwin*
> 
> 
> 
> AND.. indeed he was right, confirmed by DNA nearly 100 years later!
> and with All other relevant sciences in the explosion of them in the 160 years since.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

But Francis and ding and JBond kinda, sorta FEEL cells are too complicated to have developed that way. And that is "proof" enough for them.


----------



## abu afak

Appeal to Complexity
					

Concluding that just because you don’t understand the argument, the argument is not true, flawed, or improbable. This is a specific form of the argument from ignorance.




					www.logicallyfallacious.com
				



*(LogicallyFallacious,com)*

*Appeal to Complexity*​​*Description:* Concluding that because you don't understand something, it must not be true, it's improbable, or the argument must be flawed. This is a specific form of the _argument from ignorance_.​​*Logical Form:*​I don't understand argument X.​Therefore, argument X cannot be true / is flawed / improbable.​​*Example #1:*​​Bill the Eye Guy: The development of the eye is monophyletic, meaning they have their origins in a Proto-Eye that evolved around 540 million years ago.​*Multiple eye types and subtypes developed in parallel. We know this partly because eyes in various animals show adaption to their requirements.*​​Toby: Uh, that sounds made up. I don't think the eye could have evolved.​​*Explanation:* Yes, the evolution of the eye is confusing to Non-biologists and those who are not familiar with evolutionary theory and natural selection. *But the complexity of this argument is not a reason to reject it or find it less credible than a simpler claim (e.g. Zeus created eyes from clay)*....​
`


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“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. But I can find no such case.” -Darwin*
> 
> 
> 
> AND.. indeed he was right, (Common Descent) confirmed by DNA nearly 100 years later!
> and with All other relevant sciences in the explosion of them in the 160 years since.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

And DNA was just all random, right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Randomly formed DNA strands perfectly replicates itself.

Does half a DNA make a half cell? Why not?

Is your awareness,  your idea of self just chemicals?

It's not monkeys at a keyboard typing the works of Shakespeare,  which could never happen; it's monkeys looking at the blueprints of life and telling themselves it's just randomly drawn


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“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. But I can find no such case.” -Darwin*
> 
> 
> 
> AND.. indeed he was right, (Common Descent) confirmed by DNA nearly 100 years later!
> and with All other relevant sciences in the explosion of them in the 160 years since.
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And DNA was just all random, right?
Click to expand...

No. An entire consortium of gods made it. 

Your gods couldn't do it alone. It's too complicated.


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Randomly formed DNA strands perfectly replicates itself.
> 
> Does half a DNA make a half cell? Why not?
> 
> Is your awareness,  your idea of self just chemicals?
> 
> It's not monkeys at a keyboard typing the works of Shakespeare,  which could never happen; it's monkeys looking at the blueprints of life and telling themselves it's just randomly drawn


DNA doesn't perfectly replicate. You flunked out of 8th grade biology. Now you see the damage you did to yourself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> And DNA was just all random, right?


Absolutely not. Selection is not random. I thought we covered this? Pay attention!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> And DNA was just all random, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. Selection is not random. I thought we covered this? Pay attention!
Click to expand...

It's not random? That's what we've been telling you


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Randomly formed DNA strands perfectly replicates itself.
> 
> Does half a DNA make a half cell? Why not?
> 
> Is your awareness,  your idea of self just chemicals?
> 
> It's not monkeys at a keyboard typing the works of Shakespeare,  which could never happen; it's monkeys looking at the blueprints of life and telling themselves it's just randomly drawn
> 
> 
> 
> DNA doesn't perfectly replicate. You flunked out of 8th grade biology. Now you see the damage you did to yourself.
Click to expand...

Each DNA glitches? Are you sure?


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Randomly formed DNA strands perfectly replicates itself.
> 
> Does half a DNA make a half cell? Why not?
> 
> Is your awareness,  your idea of self just chemicals?
> 
> It's not monkeys at a keyboard typing the works of Shakespeare,  which could never happen; it's monkeys looking at the blueprints of life and telling themselves it's just randomly drawn
> 
> 
> 
> DNA doesn't perfectly replicate. You flunked out of 8th grade biology. Now you see the damage you did to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Each DNA glitches? Are you sure?
Click to expand...

Are you not paying attention to what I wrote?

DNA doesn't replicate perfectly. Your gods would have to be rather incompetent designers to magically create something prone to failure. 

You need some better trained gods.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Randomly formed DNA strands perfectly replicates itself.
> 
> Does half a DNA make a half cell? Why not?
> 
> Is your awareness,  your idea of self just chemicals?
> 
> It's not monkeys at a keyboard typing the works of Shakespeare,  which could never happen; it's monkeys looking at the blueprints of life and telling themselves it's just randomly drawn
> 
> 
> 
> DNA doesn't perfectly replicate. You flunked out of 8th grade biology. Now you see the damage you did to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Each DNA glitches? Are you sure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you not paying attention to what I wrote?
> 
> DNA doesn't replicate perfectly. Your gods would have to be rather incompetent designers to magically create something prone to failure.
> 
> You need some better trained gods.
Click to expand...


So each DNA glitches? Really?


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> So each DNA glitches? Really?


Yup.
That's a basic.
EACH one doesn't have to 'glitch' every generation and few do obviously but...
No mutation/glitches/error, no Evo.
That's why we have such variety among humans, and many morphed and failed ancestors.
With no errors/mutations, we'd all still look like Adam and Eve. (Or whatever BS you believe)

And I might add your Complexity/Incredulity fallacies have been answered many times, (incl my last) yet you Dishonestly/Idiotically/Obnoxiously just REPEAT because you have/Choose NO answer to save your god. (one of thousands)
`


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> So each DNA glitches? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.
> That's a basic.
> EACH one doesn't have to 'glitch' every generation and few do obviously but...
> No mutation/glitches/error, no Evo.
> That's why we have such variety among humans, and many morphed and failed ancestors.
> With no errors/mutations, we'd all still look like Adam and Eve. (Or whatever BS you believe)
> 
> And I might add your Complexity/Incredulity fallacies have been answered many times, (incl my last) yet you Dishonestly/Idiotically/Obnoxiously just REPEAT because you have/Choose NO answer to save your god. (one of thousands)
> `
Click to expand...


You're not understanding the math is not my problem.

Can you please expand on your glitch analogy?  When was the last one?


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> So each DNA glitches? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.
> That's a basic.
> EACH one doesn't have to 'glitch' every generation and few do obviously but...
> No mutation/glitches/error, no Evo.
> That's why we have such variety among humans, and many morphed and failed ancestors.
> With no errors/mutations, we'd all still look like Adam and Eve. (Or whatever BS you believe)
> 
> And I might add your Complexity/Incredulity fallacies have been answered many times, (incl my last) yet you Dishonestly/Idiotically/Obnoxiously just REPEAT because you have/Choose NO answer to save your god. (one of thousands)
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not understanding the math is not my problem.
> 
> Can you please expand on your glitch analogy?  When was the last one?
Click to expand...

It's apparent that a basic understanding of biology is the problem you're encountering.

 "Chance" will certainly play a part in biological evolution, but you're not understanding the fundamental role of natural selection. Natural selection as a function of environment is the very opposite of chance. "Random chance", in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the building block that natural selection acts upon. Beginning there, natural selection assembles and sorts out certain variations. Those genetic variations which provide greater reproductive success to the organisms possessing those advantageous mutations are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. Biology ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable. Environment changes and when organisms are subject to environmental isolation clearly show adaptation, as different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Mutations that are harmful to the process of adaptation usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Why did your gods make DNA susceptible to damage from sunlight, (UV radiation)? That seems like incompetent design and planning. Shirley, there must be something in the Bible that addresses DNA structure.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> So each DNA glitches? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.
> That's a basic.
> EACH one doesn't have to 'glitch' every generation and few do obviously but...
> No mutation/glitches/error, no Evo.
> That's why we have such variety among humans, and many morphed and failed ancestors.
> With no errors/mutations, we'd all still look like Adam and Eve. (Or whatever BS you believe)
> 
> And I might add your Complexity/Incredulity fallacies have been answered many times, (incl my last) yet you Dishonestly/Idiotically/Obnoxiously just REPEAT because you have/Choose NO answer to save your god. (one of thousands)
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not understanding the math is not my problem.
> 
> Can you please expand on your glitch analogy?  When was the last one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's apparent that a basic understanding of biology is the problem you're encountering.
> 
> "Chance" will certainly play a part in biological evolution, but you're not understanding the fundamental role of natural selection. Natural selection as a function of environment is the very opposite of chance. "Random chance", in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the building block that natural selection acts upon. Beginning there, natural selection assembles and sorts out certain variations. Those genetic variations which provide greater reproductive success to the organisms possessing those advantageous mutations are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. Biology ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable. Environment changes and when organisms are subject to environmental isolation clearly show adaptation, as different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Mutations that are harmful to the process of adaptation usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
> 
> Why did your gods make DNA susceptible to damage from sunlight, (UV radiation)? That seems like incompetent design and planning. Shirley, there must be something in the Bible that addresses DNA structure.
Click to expand...


I know that's what they taught you in High School and you never thought to question these assumptions.

The "Natural selection" mechanism completely falls apart in assembling the first cell. There is no conceivable way to "evolve" from a half formed cell or from half a DNA strand; it's a binary all-or-none proposition.  

Also, if these random mutation are actually how species "evolve" why don't alligators have opposable thumbs?  How is is that humans are the only species to "evolve" at light speed while so many other species are virtually unchanged over hundreds of million of years?

Finally, you keep mocking G-d and the Bible as if that's supposed to hurt my feelings or something and it only serves to make you look bad.


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> I know that's what they taught you in High School and you never thought to question these assumptions.


Alot more than you were taught in home school Jeremiah.

You've ben defeated on every point, both with sources/links and without.

Only proving the necessary Obstinacy that religionist have/OP.

Why don't all you religionists/godists get together, decide whose got the best myth, then come back and debate Atheists.
As it stands now, it's pretty funny.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> not random? That's what we've been telling you


You have not been telling me selection is not random. I had to correct your error on that at least twice. I think you might be losing your attachment to reality, Francis.


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> So each DNA glitches? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.
> That's a basic.
> EACH one doesn't have to 'glitch' every generation and few do obviously but...
> No mutation/glitches/error, no Evo.
> That's why we have such variety among humans, and many morphed and failed ancestors.
> With no errors/mutations, we'd all still look like Adam and Eve. (Or whatever BS you believe)
> 
> And I might add your Complexity/Incredulity fallacies have been answered many times, (incl my last) yet you Dishonestly/Idiotically/Obnoxiously just REPEAT because you have/Choose NO answer to save your god. (one of thousands)
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not understanding the math is not my problem.
> 
> Can you please expand on your glitch analogy?  When was the last one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's apparent that a basic understanding of biology is the problem you're encountering.
> 
> "Chance" will certainly play a part in biological evolution, but you're not understanding the fundamental role of natural selection. Natural selection as a function of environment is the very opposite of chance. "Random chance", in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the building block that natural selection acts upon. Beginning there, natural selection assembles and sorts out certain variations. Those genetic variations which provide greater reproductive success to the organisms possessing those advantageous mutations are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. Biology ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable. Environment changes and when organisms are subject to environmental isolation clearly show adaptation, as different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Mutations that are harmful to the process of adaptation usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
> 
> Why did your gods make DNA susceptible to damage from sunlight, (UV radiation)? That seems like incompetent design and planning. Shirley, there must be something in the Bible that addresses DNA structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that's what they taught you in High School and you never thought to question these assumptions.
> 
> The "Natural selection" mechanism completely falls apart in assembling the first cell. There is no conceivable way to "evolve" from a half formed cell or from half a DNA strand; it's a binary all-or-none proposition.
> 
> Also, if these random mutation are actually how species "evolve" why don't alligators have opposable thumbs?  How is is that humans are the only species to "evolve" at light speed while so many other species are virtually unchanged over hundreds of million of years?
> 
> Finally, you keep mocking G-d and the Bible as if that's supposed to hurt my feelings or something and it only serves to make you look bad.
Click to expand...

Odd that you would claim “Natural selection" mechanism completely falls apart in assembling the first cell. As noted previously, your lack of a science vocabulary is the issue. Natural selection is the process that acts of existing biological organisms. The first viable cell would be subject to natural selection after life began.

You’re not expressing a coherent argument when writing about “...no conceivable way to "evolve" from a half formed cell or from half a DNA strand”.

Your comment about alligators is another indication that you flunked out of 8th grade biology. Biological evolution is a branching tree, not a straight line from "good to bad". A population of organisms may evolve over time together or may split, with each of its subpopulations evolving in different "directions." This is apparent with the flu virus that morphs from year to year.

Evolution results in corresponding physical traits evolving in the direction of greater fitness. Since these traits already have genes coding for them, they are not acquired. They are therefore completely inheritable. Genetic variation is constantly being added to by random point mutations on the DNA molecule. Some of this new variation makes the animals slightly less fit, some makes it slightly more fit, and most makes no difference whatsoever.

Why did the gods make humans and animals with vestigial organs? Those gods, they’re such kidders.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that's what they taught you in High School and you never thought to question these assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> Alot more than you were taught in home school Jeremiah.
> 
> You've ben defeated on every point, both with sources/links and without.
> 
> Only proving the necessary Obstinacy that religionist have/OP.
> 
> Why don't all you religionists/godists get together, decide whose got the best myth, then come back and debate Atheists.
> As it stands now, it's pretty funny.
> 
> `
Click to expand...


Around and around, the math fails your theory so you reject the math, then claim I'm the frothing fundamentalist bitterly clinging to my ideology.


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> Around and around, the math fails your theory so you reject the math, then claim I'm the frothing fundamentalist bitterly clinging to my ideology.


You lost the Math several times.
So you are stupid a well as Dishonest.
You do NOT know the math because you do not know the amount of chances had to overcome any [exaggerated] odds.
Your "math' is also perverse as was explained to you in detail.

You did NOT/Could NOT answer my refutation of your 'math' on pages 12-15 and 20. (and more) 
IAC...
Who the **** would trust deluded Trailer Park Trash like you with math?

BTW your repeated posts/intentionally annoying idiotic 'incredulity' Trolls are promoting MY thread/My title.
Be glad to humor you for a few hundred pages.
Who's good at math?

`


----------



## abu afak

ie, this Thrashing among a dozens:


CrusaderFrank said:


> ....... (x100)


So you already lost on ODDS because your Failed to be able to enumerate the amount of chances there were to overcome them.
Also, as I said, even your simpleton math was wrong because of molecular tendencies.

Rational Wiki
*Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)*
​"...Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does _not_ justify confecting whatever explanation one would prefer. The inexplicable is just that, and does _not_ justify speculation as proof.​​*Sometimes Creationists compute the Astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so. They gloss over the Fact that Chemical Laws Trim most of the extraneous possibilities away.*​For instance, there are many ways to theoretically arrange hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in a molecule, but in reality, most of what forms is H2O. Note that the creationist's fundamental error is not his ignorance of this fact, but the assumption that there is nothing more to know.".."​




__





						Argument from incredulity
					

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen or does not exist because they cannot personally understand the workings.




					rationalwiki.org
				





`


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible*
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> Several times, with and without Links, I demonstrated you had no clue and merely posted the raw inaccurate 'oidds of success,' WITHOUT posting the chances like had to form that is necessary to conclude any number .
> Further:
> 
> Reports of the National Center for Science Education
> Volume 20, #4
> *Creationism and Pseudomathematics*
> 
> We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like. Thus they argue that it is irrational to believe that the event in question could have happened naturally (they mean "by chance") without the aid of intelligent design. In some cases, such as the chance formation of habitable planets, one may avoid a technical discussion of the physical processes involved and respond simply by pointing out that the universe is a very big place, containing countless galaxies, stars, and planetary systems, thus providing so much opportunity for the natural occurrence of the event in question that the probability may be quite high that such an event would occur _somewhere_. Furthermore, if the universe is infinite, providing the event with infinitely many chances to occur, then the occurrence of the event is a virtual certainty. Thus creationist probability arguments can often be undermined by pointing out that any event with a probability greater than 0, no matter how low, will be likely to happen if given enough opportunity, and sure to happen if opportunity is unlimited.
> 
> This principle is sometimes illustrated with the following thought experiment (of which the reader has probably heard one version or another): Suppose that a monkey, trained to hit the keys of a typewriter one by one in a _truly random fashion_, types forever, producing infinitely many pages of text. No one doubts that the monkey would type page after page of gibberish, but it follows from the above principle that sooner or later the monkey would type all of the works of Shakespeare from beginning to end, without error, solely by accident.
> 
> Unfortunately, this result of the thought experiment, and thus the principle itself, is sometimes explicitly rejected by creationists. One way of trying to justify their denial of this principle is by an appeal to what creationists refer to as Borel's single law of chance - a claim made by the French probability theorist Emile Borel. According to creationists, Borel's single law of chance says that any event with a probability lower than 1 in 1050 is so improbable as to be impossible (Kennedy 1980: 57; Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 183; Harber 1998: 33; Mastropaolo 1999: iii). The implication is that, since the origin of life, the evolution of humans, and many other events may have a probability below this limit, they could not possibly have happened by chance no matter how much opportunity there may have been for them to occur.
> 
> Thus creationists attempt to protect their probability arguments from our sufficient opportunity principle by invoking this single beloved mathematical law. Borel did in fact propose such a law. However, just as creationists have misrepresented the second law of thermodynamics, so have they misrepresented Borel's law of chance. So what did Borel really mean? Here is an illustration.
> 
> *Lightning Strikes - Often!*
> Hardly any of us really worries about getting struck by lightning. The probability that any individual will ever be struck by lightning is extremely low. But with so many people in the world, there is ample opportunity for this rare event to happen from time to time. It would be amazing if it _never_ happened; and indeed many of us do know of such an event. Thus there are some highly improbable events that may be rationally expected to happen occasionally.
> 
> On the other hand, we can imagine other events (such as a monkey's accidentally typing Shakespeare) that are so improbable that the entire observable universe cannot provide enough opportunity for us rationally to expect the event in question to occur. Any event of this sort that has _any_ probability at all is still possible - it is just that it would be foolish to bet on its occurrence, not only at a particular place or time, but anywhere ever (within the spatial and temporal confines of the observable universe). Borel said that such events, having a probability of no more than roughly 1 in 1050, never occur (Borel 1965: 57). But this law of chance is not _literally_ true, for, as we shall see, such events can and do happen. I think that a more accurate way to say what Borel had in mind is that _in reality_, no such event can _be rationally predicted_ ever to occur.
> 
> Unfortunately, because, I suspect, of the carelessness of creationists' research, they have failed to grasp Borel's law and instead have taken his claim at face value - as saying literally that events of such low probabilities cannot possibly occur! For example, according to Scott Huse, "[M]athematicians generally consider any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 1050 as having a zero probability ([that is] it is impossible)" (Huse 1997: 123). So in effect we are told that according to Borel's single law of chance, even if the observable universe did provide unlimited opportunity for their occurrence, such events are just too improbable ever to occur (Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 329-30). It is this claim with which I take issue (as would Borel), for though one need not be learned in mathematics to find the claim questionable, many laypeople, I fear, may find it all too easy to believe.
> 
> *All Nonzero Probabilities Are Possible*
> The probability of an event is expressed as a real number from 0 to 1; the more probable the event, the higher the number. An event can have only one probability at any time, just as a person at any given time can have only one age. However, anti-evolutionists misconstrue Borel's law of chance to imply the absurdity that low-probability events are assigned 2 different probabilities - their _true_ probability and a probability of 0.
> 
> By way of example, suppose that one were to program a computer to generate 100 random digits. There would be 10100 equally likely possible outcomes. The probability of any given outcome would thus be 10-100. Applying the creationist "law of chance", we would have to conclude that any conceivable outcome, because it has a probability less than 1 in 1050, is literally impossible, having no chance of occurring and thus having a probability of 0 (see the Huse quote above). But clearly no event can have a probability of 1 in 10100 _and_ a probability of 0 (unless we think that 1/10100 = 0, which is as false as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5). Moreover, since the conceivable outcomes are what mathematicians call mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, the sum of all their individual probabilities must equal 1, which they cannot do if they are all 0.
> 
> Fortunately, one need only carry out this experiment to see the anti-evolutionists' version of this "law of chance" falsified. For surely _some _outcome must be realized when we instruct the computer to select 100 random digits, despite the fact that the calculated probability of each outcome that the computer could produce falls far below the supposed threshold of possibility. (Borel, on the other hand, would say that no_ preconceived_ outcome could be rationally expected to occur, because the probability of successfully guessing the outcome in advance is too low for it to be expected to happen in the real world.) Thus we see that the anti-evolutionist appeal to Borel's law of chance fails to refute the principle that any event with a positive probability, no matter how small, is bound to happen somewhere sometime if given infinitely many chances.
> [.......]
> [.......]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism and Pseudomathematics | National Center for Science Education
> 
> 
> We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ncse.ngo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...


Yawn.

WTF is an anti-evolutionists????

Sounds like the Climate Change Cult.

The article is off by several billion orders of magnitude.

The odds of a functioning DNA strand in a functioning cellular nucleus forming by random chance are prohibitive. That it exists is not an argument that it can only be happenstance


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Around and around, the math fails your theory so you reject the math, then claim I'm the frothing fundamentalist bitterly clinging to my ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> You lost the Math several times.
> So you are stupid a well as Dishonest.
> You do NOT know the math because you do not know the amount of chances had to overcome any [exaggerated] odds.
> Your "math' is also perverse as was explained to you in detail.
> 
> You did NOT/Could NOT answer my refutation of your 'math' on pages 12-15 and 20. (and more)
> IAC...
> Who the **** would trust deluded Trailer Park Trash like you with math?
> 
> BTW your repeated posts/intentionally annoying idiotic 'incredulity' Trolls are promoting MY thread/My title.
> Be glad to humor you for a few hundred pages.
> Who's good at math?
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Let's try this:

How long ago did Earth form?

When did the first cells appear?

How many organelles were in the first cell?

How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> Yawn.
> 
> WTF is an anti-evolutionists????
> 
> Sounds like the Climate Change Cult.
> 
> The article is off by several billion orders of magnitude.
> 
> The odds of a functioning DNA strand in a functioning cellular nucleus forming by random chance are prohibitive. That it exists is not an argument that it can only be happenstance


*You've lost the beginner trope 'complexity'/'Incredulity' debate (Fallacies) like 30 times in this thread.*

Do you have anything else?
*Any HARD EVIDENCE of a god instead of another 'God of the Gaps'/'It must be god because I can't understand it'?
Because your disbelief/lack of understanding is NOT evidence... it's ignorance trailer-park guy.

Now go check the propane tank before it blows up.*

With your help/stupidity I think I can get this over 100 pages and all-time dominant in the section.




*`*


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> WTF is an anti-evolutionists????
> 
> Sounds like the Climate Change Cult.
> 
> The article is off by several billion orders of magnitude.
> 
> The odds of a functioning DNA strand in a functioning cellular nucleus forming by random chance are prohibitive. That it exists is not an argument that it can only be happenstance
> 
> 
> 
> *You've lost the beginner trope 'complexity'/'Incredulity' debate (Fallacies) like 30 times in this thread.*
> 
> Do you have anything else?
> *Any HARD EVIDENCE of a god instead of another 'God of the Gaps'/'It must be god because I can't understand it'?
> Because your disbelief/lack of understanding is NOT evidence... it's ignorance trailer-park guy.
> 
> Now go check the propane tank before it blows up.*
> 
> With your help/stupidity I think I can get this over 100 pages and all-time dominant in the section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *`*
Click to expand...

Let's try this:

How long ago did Earth form?

When did the first cells appear?

How many organelles were in the first cell?

How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> Let's try this:
> 
> How long ago did Earth form?
> 
> When did the first cells appear?
> 
> How many organelles were in the first cell?
> 
> How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?


Your Trivia quiz is useless, and another stupid attempt at the Incredulity fallacy. (with a minor in the 'demand endless detail fallacy')

If you don't like that, just refer to my last two posts on this page which answer you completely and for which you have/had NO answer.

*Do you have any HARD EVIDENCE of god instead of the 'God of the Gaps' Fallacy. ("I don't understand/it's too complicated so it must be god")
IOW, you got nothing.*
`


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try this:
> 
> How long ago did Earth form?
> 
> When did the first cells appear?
> 
> How many organelles were in the first cell?
> 
> How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?
> 
> 
> 
> Your Trivia quiz is useless, and another stupid attempt at the Incredulity fallacy. (with a minor in the 'demand endless detail fallacy')
> 
> If you don't like that, just refer to my last two posts on this page which answer you completely and for which you have/had NO answer.
> 
> *Do you have any HARD EVIDENCE of god instead of the 'God of the Gaps' Fallacy. ("I don't understand/it's too complicated so it must be god")
> IOW, you got nothing.*
> `
Click to expand...


You calling it a "Fallacy" does not make it so.  You want to buleeeeve that a cell was RANDOMLY created with all of the organelles perfectly aligned and functioning and with an exact DNA that would replicate it.

Which came first, the perfectly formed and aligned organelles or the DNA?  They had to "evolve" randomly together, right because one with out the other is half an arch.

Go post more of your "fallacies" because we both know you have no other answer

Do you know how complex an individual organelle is?


----------



## abu afak

`






`


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try this:
> 
> How long ago did Earth form?
> 
> When did the first cells appear?
> 
> How many organelles were in the first cell?
> 
> How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?
> 
> 
> 
> Your Trivia quiz is useless, and another stupid attempt at the Incredulity fallacy. (with a minor in the 'demand endless detail fallacy')
> 
> If you don't like that, just refer to my last two posts on this page which answer you completely and for which you have/had NO answer.
> 
> *Do you have any HARD EVIDENCE of god instead of the 'God of the Gaps' Fallacy. ("I don't understand/it's too complicated so it must be god")
> IOW, you got nothing.*
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You calling it a "Fallacy" does not make it so.  You want to buleeeeve that a cell was RANDOMLY created with all of the organelles perfectly aligned and functioning and with an exact DNA that would replicate it.
> 
> Which came first, the perfectly formed and aligned organelles or the DNA?  They had to "evolve" randomly together, right because one with out the other is half an arch.
> 
> Go post more of your "fallacies" because we both know you have no other answer
> 
> Do you know how complex an individual organelle is?
Click to expand...

Your screeching comments that followed your "fallacy" nonsense reflect abhorrent ignorance of biological systems. 

Be honest. You really did flunk out of 8th biology, right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> `
> 
> View attachment 475050
> 
> `



LOL! 

You can explain how the DNA and organelles "randomly" assembled?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try this:
> 
> How long ago did Earth form?
> 
> When did the first cells appear?
> 
> How many organelles were in the first cell?
> 
> How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?
> 
> 
> 
> Your Trivia quiz is useless, and another stupid attempt at the Incredulity fallacy. (with a minor in the 'demand endless detail fallacy')
> 
> If you don't like that, just refer to my last two posts on this page which answer you completely and for which you have/had NO answer.
> 
> *Do you have any HARD EVIDENCE of god instead of the 'God of the Gaps' Fallacy. ("I don't understand/it's too complicated so it must be god")
> IOW, you got nothing.*
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You calling it a "Fallacy" does not make it so.  You want to buleeeeve that a cell was RANDOMLY created with all of the organelles perfectly aligned and functioning and with an exact DNA that would replicate it.
> 
> Which came first, the perfectly formed and aligned organelles or the DNA?  They had to "evolve" randomly together, right because one with out the other is half an arch.
> 
> Go post more of your "fallacies" because we both know you have no other answer
> 
> Do you know how complex an individual organelle is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your screeching comments that followed your "fallacy" nonsense reflect abhorrent ignorance of biological systems.
> 
> Be honest. You really did flunk out of 8th biology, right?
Click to expand...


Do you know what an organelle is?  DNA?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The Information in DNA Determines Cellular Function via Translation.

snip.... Redundancy in the genetic code means that most amino acids are specified by more than one mRNA codon. For example, the amino acid phenylalanine (Phe) is specified by the codons UUU and UUC, and the amino acid leucine (Leu) is specified by the codons CUU, CUC, CUA, and CUG. Methionine is specified by the codon AUG, which is also known as the *start codon*. Consequently, methionine is the first amino acid to dock in the ribosome during the synthesis of proteins. Tryptophan is unique because it is the only amino acid specified by a single codon. The remaining 19 amino acids are specified by between two and six codons each. The codons UAA, UAG, and UGA are the *stop codons *that signal the termination of translation.....

This system can about randomly? From molecules bumping into each other?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try this:
> 
> How long ago did Earth form?
> 
> When did the first cells appear?
> 
> How many organelles were in the first cell?
> 
> How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?
> 
> 
> 
> Your Trivia quiz is useless, and another stupid attempt at the Incredulity fallacy. (with a minor in the 'demand endless detail fallacy')
> 
> If you don't like that, just refer to my last two posts on this page which answer you completely and for which you have/had NO answer.
> 
> *Do you have any HARD EVIDENCE of god instead of the 'God of the Gaps' Fallacy. ("I don't understand/it's too complicated so it must be god")
> IOW, you got nothing.*
> `
Click to expand...


Let's try this:

How long ago did Earth form? 

4400 mya – The *Earth's* first oceans *formed*
https://www.dynamicearth.co.uk/media/1514/geological-timeline-pack.pdf

When did the first cells appear?

3850 mya – The first life appeared on *Earth*.
https://www.dynamicearth.co.uk/media/1514/geological-timeline-pack.pdf

So, it's 550,000,000 years

How many organelles were in the first cell?

Go away!  Just go Away!

How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA? 

See Go away, just go away above

How many times must you shake together inorganic compounds to create Life?

 Infinity


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try this:
> 
> How long ago did Earth form?
> 
> When did the first cells appear?
> 
> How many organelles were in the first cell?
> 
> How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?
> 
> 
> 
> Your Trivia quiz is useless, and another stupid attempt at the Incredulity fallacy. (with a minor in the 'demand endless detail fallacy')
> 
> If you don't like that, just refer to my last two posts on this page which answer you completely and for which you have/had NO answer.
> 
> *Do you have any HARD EVIDENCE of god instead of the 'God of the Gaps' Fallacy. ("I don't understand/it's too complicated so it must be god")
> IOW, you got nothing.*
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You calling it a "Fallacy" does not make it so.  You want to buleeeeve that a cell was RANDOMLY created with all of the organelles perfectly aligned and functioning and with an exact DNA that would replicate it.
> 
> Which came first, the perfectly formed and aligned organelles or the DNA?  They had to "evolve" randomly together, right because one with out the other is half an arch.
> 
> Go post more of your "fallacies" because we both know you have no other answer
> 
> Do you know how complex an individual organelle is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your screeching comments that followed your "fallacy" nonsense reflect abhorrent ignorance of biological systems.
> 
> Be honest. You really did flunk out of 8th biology, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what an organelle is?  DNA?
Click to expand...

Quite a sidestep. So yes, you did flunk out of 8 th grade biology.


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> 
> View attachment 475050
> 
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> You can explain how the DNA and organelles "randomly" assembled?
Click to expand...

DNA and organelles would not "randomly" assemble.

Can you explain how your gods supernaturally created DNA and failed to realize how really inept their magical creation was?


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try this:
> 
> How long ago did Earth form?
> 
> When did the first cells appear?
> 
> How many organelles were in the first cell?
> 
> How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?
> 
> 
> 
> Your Trivia quiz is useless, and another stupid attempt at the Incredulity fallacy. (with a minor in the 'demand endless detail fallacy')
> 
> If you don't like that, just refer to my last two posts on this page which answer you completely and for which you have/had NO answer.
> 
> *Do you have any HARD EVIDENCE of god instead of the 'God of the Gaps' Fallacy. ("I don't understand/it's too complicated so it must be god")
> IOW, you got nothing.*
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try this:
> 
> How long ago did Earth form?
> 
> 4400 mya – The *Earth's* first oceans *formed*
> https://www.dynamicearth.co.uk/media/1514/geological-timeline-pack.pdf
> 
> When did the first cells appear?
> 
> 3850 mya – The first life appeared on *Earth*.
> https://www.dynamicearth.co.uk/media/1514/geological-timeline-pack.pdf
> 
> So, it's 550,000,000 years
> 
> How many organelles were in the first cell?
> 
> Go away!  Just go Away!
> 
> How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?
> 
> See Go away, just go away above
> 
> How many times must you shake together inorganic compounds to create Life?
> 
> Infinity
Click to expand...


“When did the first cells appear?

3850 mya – The first life appeared on Earth.”

Where did the first cells come from?  Which gods magically created those cells.


----------



## LittleNipper

I fully believe that GOD has provided man and the animals the means to cope with environmental changes. Man builds houses and invented various means of both heating and cooling them. As man lost servants, the GOD inspired ability of inventiveness came into play. Man made cars, washers, dryers, planes, ships, clocks, tools, etc., etc., etc...  In the very same way animals adapted to the cold, the warmth, the light and the dark. Where I draw the line is that single celled organisms developed into multicellular organisms that then developed into the various animals and eventually led to man. And this form or application of the word EVOLUTION is the one I totally abhor. This is not what GOD did at all.


----------



## abu afak

LittleNipper said:


> I fully believe that GOD has provided man and the animals the means to cope with environmental changes. Man builds...


Most of the predecessors of ALL extant animals, including ours are EXTINCT from lack of adaptation.
Infinitely more species existed (gods' errors) than exist now.

We are what's Left of them because we are best suited to present conditions.
We and all creatures/life are still evolving.
It's a process that never stops.

Learn the facts.
No one gives a **** what CRAP you believe except on Sunday Morning or the RELIGION section here.
This however is the SCI section
STAY THE **** OUT.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> WTF is an anti-evolutionist


Find a mirror. You are embarrassing yourself by saying the most idiotic things, all to try to shit on evolution. You have a problem.


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> Yawn.
> 
> WTF is an anti-evolutionists????
> 
> Sounds like the Climate Change Cult.
> 
> The article is off by several billion orders of magnitude.
> 
> The odds of a functioning DNA strand in a functioning cellular nucleus forming by random chance are prohibitive. That it exists is not an argument that it can only be happenstance


You can't and haven't posted the chances of life occurring naturally.
Until you post Chances for vs Chances against, you have No real odds.
(not to mention even your one side of equation is exaggerated/Wrong as I've explained/Gutted you on several times with and without sources.)

The Creationist word 'evolutionist' is wrong, redundant, and unnecessary.
It's like calling someone a 'gravitationalist.'
It's believing an well known/accepted fact/goes without saying.
A word with no meaning except as an epithet used by religious retards that has outlived any usefulness.
`


----------



## abu afak

CrusaderFrank said:


> You calling it a "Fallacy" does not make it so.  You want to buleeeeve that a cell was RANDOMLY created with all of the organelles perfectly aligned and functioning and with an exact DNA that would replicate it.
> 
> Which came first, the perfectly formed and aligned organelles or the DNA?  They had to "evolve" randomly together, right because one with out the other is half an arch.
> 
> Go post more of your "fallacies" because we both know you have no other answer
> 
> Do you know how complex an individual organelle is?


As it turns out..
Most Kweationists have been brainwashed since childhood.
Their family and social lives revolve around a church.
There's no way to 'talk' to them.
Their lives would collapse if they even thought about the Truth.

`


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> As it turns out..
> Most Kweationists have been brainwashed since childhood.
> Their family and social lives revolve around a church.
> There's no way to 'talk' to them.
> Their lives would collapse if they even thought about the Truth.
> 
> `


An atheist babbling about the Truth is akin to a used condom wrapped around a syphilis-ridden penis.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> An atheist babbling about the Truth is akin to a used condom wrapped around a syphilis-ridden penis.


But enough about your health issues.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> But enough about your health issues.


I laugh at atheists.  I open my mouth and guffaw.


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> I laugh at atheists.  I open my mouth and guffaw.


You mean because you can/have shown them proof of god.
You haven't.
You haven't even picked one of the myths and made a case for it/him.
You've just broadcasted/Endlessly repeated your brain damaged irrational post here and all over the net, and got laughed off many places.
(having gotten no attention to your own blog/deluded screed)

`


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> You mean because you can/have shown them proof of god.
> You haven't.
> You haven't even picked one of the myths and made a case for it/him.
> You've just broadcasted/Endlessly repeated your brain damaged irrational post here and all over the net, and got laughed off many places.
> (having gotten no attention to your own blog/deluded screed)
> 
> `


Shut up.  Stop boring me with the same ol' atheist blathersmack.

You can't prove God exists.  _derp derp _ There's no evidence for God's existence.   _Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
_
Nonsense.

The imperatives of logic and mathematics prove God's existence, and the existence of the  Universe is the evidence of God's existence.  But atheists don't do logic.  The atheist must necessarily assert either the absurdity of an actual infinite or the absurdity of a universe that just popped into existence without a cause.  Choose.


----------



## LittleNipper

abu afak said:


> As it turns out..
> Most Kweationists have been brainwashed since childhood.
> Their family and social lives revolve around a church.
> There's no way to 'talk' to them.
> Their lives would collapse if they even thought about the Truth.
> 
> `


Most Ebilutionists have been harped on since preschool.
Their family and social lives evolve around materialism.
There's no way to communicate with them because they see themselves as exclusive and more intelligent than persons of religious faith.
Their lives fall apart when they think about anything deeper than sports.,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> There's no way to communicate with them because they see themselves as exclusive and more intelligent than persons of religious faith.


There is no way for YOU to communicate with them, because doing so requires understanding evolution. And you, my friend, know less than nothing about evolution. You would fail a 7th grade science quiz. You actually possess net NEGATIVE knowledge of evolution. You know nothing true about it, and everything you think you know is wrong. 

It would take a take a yeoman's effort just to bring you back to net zero knowledge of evolution. I.E., the level of knowledge of evolution possessed by a newborn baby, or a fast food wrapper.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> There is no way for YOU to communicate with them, because doing so requires understanding evolution. And you, my friend, know less than nothing about evolution. You would fail a 7th grade science quiz. You actually possess net NEGATIVE knowledge of evolution. You know nothing true about it, and everything you think you know is wrong.
> 
> It would take a take a yeoman's effort just to bring you back to net zero knowledge of evolution. I.E., the level of knowledge of evolution possessed by a newborn baby, or a fast food wrapper.





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> There is no way for YOU to communicate with them, because doing so requires understanding evolution. And you, my friend, know less than nothing about evolution. You would fail a 7th grade science quiz. You actually possess net NEGATIVE knowledge of evolution. You know nothing true about it, and everything you think you know is wrong.
> 
> It would take a take a yeoman's effort just to bring you back to net zero knowledge of evolution. I.E., the level of knowledge of evolution possessed by a newborn baby, or a fast food wrapper.


There is no way of communicating with them, because doing so requires an understanding of spirituality. And you, my fiend, no less than nothing about the spiritual. You would fail a 1st grade Bible quiz. You actually possess net negative knowledge of spirituality. You understand nothing true about it, and everything you say you know is wrong... And as for evolution, unless you can rid the world of Covid19, I could care less for your values or opinions of anything including evolution.


----------



## abu afak

LittleNipper said:


> There is no way of communicating with them, because doing so requires an understanding of spirituality. And you, my fiend, no less than nothing about the spiritual....


So you'd be good with Tarot cards too. Logic/science, not so much.
`


----------



## LittleNipper

abu afak said:


> So you'd be good with Tarot cards too. Logic/science, not so much.


Dabbling in Tarot cards is Demonic. The Bible warns against getting involved with Satan.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> There is no way of communicating with them, because doing so requires an understanding of spirituality.


Nope, sorry, that's also horseshit. Plenty of scientists and others who know evolution is a fact are spiritual. 


Got any other useless nonsense you would like to make up on the spot?


----------



## abu afak

LittleNipper said:


> Dabbling in Tarot cards is Demonic. The Bible warns against getting involved with Satan.


Angelic/Demonic are just two sides of the SAME Non-existant religious/faith-based fantasy.
No better than Tarot cards.
You do Not belong here.

`


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> I laugh at atheists.  I open my mouth and guffaw.


A mouth breather. That's predictable.


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> Shut up.  Stop boring me with the same ol' atheist blathersmack.
> 
> You can't prove God exists.  _derp derp _ There's no evidence for God's existence.   _Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh_
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The imperatives of logic and mathematics prove God's existence, and the existence of the  Universe is the evidence of God's existence.  But atheists don't do logic.  The atheist must necessarily assert either the absurdity of an actual infinite or the absurdity of a universe that just popped into existence without a cause.  Choose.


You mean because you can/have shown them proof of god.
You haven't.
You haven't even picked one of the myths and made a case for it/him.
You've just broadcasted/Endlessly repeated your brain damaged irrational post here and all over the net, and got laughed off many places.
(having gotten no attention to your own blog/deluded screed)


`


----------



## LittleNipper

abu afak said:


> Angelic/Demonic are just two sides of the SAME Non-existant religious/faith-based fantasy.
> No better than Tarot cards.
> You do Not belong here.
> 
> `


You wouldn't know demonic possession  if you were hit over the head with it.  And I have just as much a right here as anyone. Maybe I have even more of a right than you. I'm at least aware that explainable things happen ----- and they are not all pleasant.


----------



## surada

LittleNipper said:


> You wouldn't know demonic possession  if you were hit over the head with it.  And I have just as much a right here as anyone. Maybe I have even more of a right than you. I'm at least aware that explainable things happen ----- and they are not all pleasant.



What church do you belong to?


----------



## LittleNipper

surada said:


> What church do you belong to?


I presently attend an Independent Fundamentalist Bible church.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> I presently attend an Independent Fundamentalist Bible church.


Should've chosen college, if you were planning to post in the science section.


----------



## abu afak

LittleNipper said:


> *....I'm at least aware that explainable things happen ----- and they are not all pleasant.*


No!
It's SCIENCE that deals in "Explainable/Explaining things."
Religion is FAITH - belief withOUT evidence.
`


----------



## LittleNipper

abu afak said:


> No!
> It's SCIENCE that deals in "Explainable/Explaining things."
> Religion is FAITH - belief withOUT evidence.
> `


If there is no repeatability, then it cannot be regarded as science. It maybe a theory, an idea, and even excepted by many in the field of science.  However, it cannot aspire to be scientific unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Creationism is supported by the Bible. That doesn't make it scientific. Evolution is supported by the writings of Darwin. That doesn't make it science. Both possess areas of FAITH.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> If there is no repeatability, then it cannot be regarded as science. It maybe a theory, an idea, and even excepted by many in the field of science.  However, it cannot aspire to be scientific unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Creationism is supported by the Bible. That doesn't make it scientific. Evolution is supported by the writings of Darwin. That doesn't make it science. Both possess areas of FAITH.



Unfortunately, your lack of a science vocabulary results in nonsensical statements such as  ''_proven beyond a shadow of a doubt_.'' You should not include definitions of terms / words you don't understand. A law as described in science is a generalization that describes a natural phenomena. Note that science deals with natural phenomena as supernaturalism and magic are not science matters.  A theory is an explanation of a natural phenomenon. For example, the law of gravity describes the motion of objects under certain circumstances when affected by other objects; the theory of gravity explains why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with new data. 

Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena developed from logical hypotheses and testable observations and experiments. Science uses the word 'fact' when referring to something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is every reason to accept the evidence and testing as offering every compelling reason to accept the data as repeatable and accurate. The occurrence of gravity as well as biological evolution in this sense are facts. Scientists no longer question whether gravity or biological evolution are quantifiable because the evidence supporting the theories are so strong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> If there is no repeatability, then it cannot be regarded as science.


Ah yes, idiot creationist talking point number 18. Apparently we cant know anything about volcanoes, unless we make one from scratch. And we cant know anything about star formation, unless we make a star in the lab.

This is just a desperate little piece of idiocy that would get laughed out of any room of scientists.


----------



## surada

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ah yes, idiot creationist talking point number 18. Apparently we cant know anything about volcanoes, unless we make one from scratch. And we cant know anything about star formation, unless we make a star in the lab.
> 
> This is just a desperate little piece of idiocy
> that would get laughed out of any room of scientists.



Evangelicals pretty much reject science, history and education.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Unfortunately, your lack of a science vocabulary results in nonsensical statements such as  ''_proven beyond a shadow of a doubt_.'' You should not include definitions of terms / words you don't understand. A law as described in science is a generalization that describes a natural phenomena. Note that science deals with natural phenomena as supernaturalism and magic are not science matters.  A theory is an explanation of a natural phenomenon. For example, the law of gravity describes the motion of objects under certain circumstances when affected by other objects; the theory of gravity explains why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with new data.
> 
> Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena developed from logical hypotheses and testable observations and experiments. Science uses the word 'fact' when referring to something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is every reason to accept the evidence and testing as offering every compelling reason to accept the data as repeatable and accurate. The occurrence of gravity as well as biological evolution in this sense are facts. Scientists no longer question whether gravity or biological evolution are quantifiable because the evidence supporting the theories are so strong.


What evolutionists continually fail to provide are *specific* examples for their "generalizations".  A theory is an explanation and that is true. The problem is that an explanation isn't necessarily true simply because many accept it...


Hollie said:


> Unfortunately, your lack of a science vocabulary results in nonsensical statements such as  ''_proven beyond a shadow of a doubt_.'' You should not include definitions of terms / words you don't understand. A law as described in science is a generalization that describes a natural phenomena. Note that science deals with natural phenomena as supernaturalism and magic are not science matters.  A theory is an explanation of a natural phenomenon. For example, the law of gravity describes the motion of objects under certain circumstances when affected by other objects; the theory of gravity explains why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with new data.
> 
> Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena developed from logical hypotheses and testable observations and experiments. Science uses the word 'fact' when referring to something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is every reason to accept the evidence and testing as offering every compelling reason to accept the data as repeatable and accurate. The occurrence of gravity as well as biological evolution in this sense are facts. Scientists no longer question whether gravity or biological evolution are quantifiable because the evidence supporting the theories are so strong.


Okay,  show me (for I sincerely wish to know the truth and truth is founded upon only fact) when and where has a canine been observed through experimentation and tenability to be changing into something other than a form of canine kind.  Now I theorize you will say that "kind" is not a scientific term but "species" is. Says who? KIND is a general term that was in used for thousands of years. A wolf and a dog can mate and have pups.   That is because they are of the same KIND.  Species theoretically are not supposed to be able to mate.  And yet is not wolves considered a species  and dogs considered a species.  I see domesticated and undomesticated.  I see big and little, fuzzy and furry, light and dark ---- but a 6 thousand year old canine is still a canine.  And we would recognize such as a canine.   Prove me wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> The problem is that an explanation isn't necessarily true simply because many accept it...


Right, in this case it is true because ot is supported by every shred of evidence ever recorded in every single field of science. And all the evidence is mutually supportive. But you know squat about the theory or the evidence and so are not even entitled to an opinion on any of it.


----------



## surada

LittleNipper said:


> What evolutionists continually fail to provide are *specific* examples for their "generalizations".  A theory is an explanation and that is true. The problem is that an explanation isn't necessarily true simply because many accept it...
> 
> Okay,  show me (for I sincerely wish to know the truth and truth is founded upon only fact) when and where has a canine been observed through experimentation and tenability to be changing into something other than a form of canine kind.  Now I theorize you will say that "kind" is not a scientific term but "species" is. Says who? KIND is a general term that was in used for thousands of years. A wolf and a dog can mate and have pups.   That is because they are of the same KIND.  Species theoretically are not supposed to be able to mate.  And yet is not wolves considered a species  and dogs considered a species.  I see domesticated and undomesticated.  I see big and little, fuzzy and furry, light and dark ---- but a 6 thousand year old canine is still a canine.  And we would recognize such as a canine.   Prove me wrong.



There's plenty of evidence for evolution.. Look at Madagascar and Australia.

Evangelicals and Fundamentalists were hijacked .about 100 years ago by Cyrus Scofield.


----------



## LittleNipper

surada said:


> Evangelicals pretty much reject science, history and education.


This is a LIE!  Evangelicals love science. They study diseases to find causes and cures. They study plants to develop better strains of wheat and corn. They developed machines that have lead to various technologies. Nearly every college and university that you may name began as CHRISTIAN schools. Princeton began as a school of divinity. It was realized by Christians that those who shun and ignore history are bound to make the same mistakes over and over. And so I have presented to you rational logic as to why your statement above was and is a lie. It is not supported by HISTORY.


----------



## surada

LittleNipper said:


> This is a LIE!  Evangelicals love science. They study diseases to find causes and cures. They study plants to develop better strains of wheat and corn. They developed machines that have lead to various technologies. Nearly every college and university that you may name began as CHRISTIAN schools. Princeton began as a school of divinity. It was realized by Christians that those who shun and ignore history are bound to make the same mistakes over and over. And so I have presented to you rational logic as to why your statement above was and is a lie. It is not supported by HISTORY.



Scofield only screwed Evangelicals and Fundamentalist over about 19015. They glommed on to his heresy  because they rejected science and modernity. Of course its supported by history.

Princeton didn't teach Scofield.


----------



## LittleNipper

surada said:


> Scofield only screwed Evangelicals and Fundamentalist over about 19015. They glommed on to his heresy  because they rejected science and modernity. Of course its supported by history.
> 
> Princeton didn't teach Scofield.


Scofield is not the only minister who regarded Dispensational Truth.  And I never said he went to Princeton.


----------



## abu afak

LittleNipper said:


> This is a LIE!  Evangelicals love science. They study diseases to find causes and cures. They study plants to develop better strains of wheat and corn. They developed machines that have lead to various technologies. Nearly every college and university that you may name began as CHRISTIAN schools. Princeton began as a school of divinity. It was realized by Christians that those who shun and ignore history are bound to make the same mistakes over and over. And so I have presented to you rational logic as to why your statement above was and is a lie. It is not supported by HISTORY.


No, they love their faith and it's object and think Genesis is 'science' Despite the facts.
Witness You, james bond, PoliticalChic  and others.

`


----------



## jbrownson0831

abu afak said:


> Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
> Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.
> 
> *HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION*
> Smithsonian Magazine -- 4-19-2018
> 
> *""Rick Potts is no atheist-evolutionist-Darwinist.* That often comes as a surprise to the faith communities he works with as head of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Human Origins Program in Washington, D.C.
> 
> Raised Protestant — with, he likes to say, “an emphasis on the ‘protest’” — the paleoanthropologist spends his weekends singing in a choir that sings both sacred and secular songs. At 18, he became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War...
> [....]That’s why, for him, human evolution is the perfect topic to break down entrenched barriers between people in an increasingly polarized, politicized world.
> [.....]
> If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: *Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.*
> 
> What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, *among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?*
> [.....]
> [.....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution
> 
> 
> For two years, researchers from the Smithsonian traveled the country explaining the science of our shared origins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com


.....the same way you mutated sheeple talk about everything else....like a parrot squawking out your trained responses.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

jbrownson0831 said:


> .....the same way you mutated sheeple talk about everything else....like a parrot squawking out your trained responses.


Ah yes, the way morons view established scientific knowledge. You can't avoid telling on yourselves.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
> Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.
> 
> *HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION*
> Smithsonian Magazine -- 4-19-2018
> 
> *""Rick Potts is no atheist-evolutionist-Darwinist.* That often comes as a surprise to the faith communities he works with as head of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Human Origins Program in Washington, D.C.
> 
> Raised Protestant — with, he likes to say, “an emphasis on the ‘protest’” — the paleoanthropologist spends his weekends singing in a choir that sings both sacred and secular songs. At 18, he became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War...
> [....]That’s why, for him, human evolution is the perfect topic to break down entrenched barriers between people in an increasingly polarized, politicized world.
> [.....]
> If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: *Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.*
> 
> What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, *among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?*
> [.....]
> [.....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution
> 
> 
> For two years, researchers from the Smithsonian traveled the country explaining the science of our shared origins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com


This is why we need to teach creation science in public schools.  All scientists know today is atheist science.  These people foolishly ASSUME there was no creator and/or state God is religion.  No such thing.  This was even prophesized way before Darwin and his cronies made up atheist science.  They purposely discarded the dominant science of the time in creation and catastrophism and convinced many to fall for the made up uniformitarianism and evolution lie.

"for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:25

I could easily be a closed minded hypocrite and state, "This isn't even a science topic, but an atheist religion one."  Yet, I recognize the creationists have a long way to go before getting creation science in all our schools.  Hopefully, we can do it years before 2060, the year Sir Isaac Newton made a guess about the end of times.

>>Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.<<







Lol, the irony.  I think it will be a BIG SHOCK for the atheist indoctrinated cultists like abu afak.  I hope he doesn't work around electricity .


----------



## abu afak

*Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.

 It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts,[2] theories and paradigms of geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archaeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics using creation science.[8] Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.[9]

In contrast with the views of creation science, *the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science Fails to qualify as scientific because it Lacks empirical support, supplies No testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.*[10][11]

*Courts, *most often in the United States where the question has been asked in the context of teaching the subject in public schools, *have consistently ruled since the 1980s that creation science is a religious view rather than a scientific one.

Historians,[12] philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a Pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts. * [13][14][15][16][17]

*Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly,[18] and even as a Dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences. *[19]...









						Creation science - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> This is why we need to teach creation science in public schools.  All scientists know today is atheist science.  These people foolishly ASSUME there was no creator and/or state God is religion.  No such thing.  This was even prophesized way before Darwin and his cronies made up atheist science.  They purposely discarded the dominant science of the time in creation and catastrophism and convinced many to fall for the made up uniformitarianism and evolution lie.
> 
> "for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:25
> 
> I could easily be a closed minded hypocrite and state, "This isn't even a science topic, but an atheist religion one."  Yet, I recognize the creationists have a long way to go before getting creation science in all our schools.  Hopefully, we can do it years before 2060, the year Sir Isaac Newton made a guess about the end of times.
> 
> >>Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
> Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.<<
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, the irony.  I think it will be a BIG SHOCK for the atheist indoctrinated cultists like abu afak.  I hope he doesn't work around electricity .



Creation science is not science. Its foundation myth.. You should teach your children creation science at home or in church and Sunday school NOT in the public schools.. 

You do know that if you insist on teaching mythology as history and science, you run the risk of driving your children away from Christianity altogether.


----------



## surada

abu afak said:


> *Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.
> 
> It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts,[2] theories and paradigms of geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archaeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics using creation science.[8] Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.[9]
> 
> *In contrast with the views of creation science, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science Fails to qualify as scientific because it Lacks empirical support, supplies No testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.*[10][11]
> *Courts, most often in the United States where the question has been asked in the context of teaching the subject in public schools, have consistently ruled since the 1980s that creation science is a religious view rather than a scientific one.
> 
> Historians,[12] philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[13][14][15][16][17]
> 
> Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly,[18] and even as a Dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.[19]...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



Well, they could teach "Bible" as an elective which is what the best private prep schools do, but they don't wreck their science curriculum with ancient mythos.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> No, they love their faith and it's object and think Genesis is 'science' Despite the facts.
> Witness You, james bond, PoliticalChic  and others.
> 
> `


Your side is religious, too.  It is atheist and that is a religion.  Don't lie because your science assumes atheism.

The ones who have faith in atheism have a stronger belief in evolution even though science does not back up evolution.  Otherwise, they're agnostic and just have an opinion.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Creation science is not science. Its foundation myth.. You should teach your children creation science at home or in church and Sunday school NOT in the public schools..
> 
> You do know that if you insist on teaching mythology as history and science, you run the risk of driving your children away from Christianity altogether.


Lol.  You're one of the worst here in regards to creation science.  The smarter students think there is something wrong with evolution as science does not back it up.  They think evolution is a myth except for natural selection which was founded by creationists.  Creationists have had the best scientists throughout history.  Atheist scientists are biased and have discarded real science.  Anyway, I'll put you down in the same level as abu afak which is pretty low.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Your side is religious, too.  It is atheist and that is a religion.  Don't lie because your science assumes atheism.
> 
> The ones who have faith in atheism have a stronger belief in evolution even though science does not back up evolution.  Otherwise, they're agnostic and just have an opinion.



Atheism isn't a religion. There is no worship involved. Evolution can be documented ..Beliefs cannot.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> This is why we need to teach creation science in public schools.  All scientists know today is atheist science.  These people foolishly ASSUME there was no creator and/or state God is religion.  No such thing.  This was even prophesized way before Darwin and his cronies made up atheist science.  They purposely discarded the dominant science of the time in creation and catastrophism and convinced many to fall for the made up uniformitarianism and evolution lie.
> 
> "for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:25
> 
> I could easily be a closed minded hypocrite and state, "This isn't even a science topic, but an atheist religion one."  Yet, I recognize the creationists have a long way to go before getting creation science in all our schools.  Hopefully, we can do it years before 2060, the year Sir Isaac Newton made a guess about the end of times.
> 
> >>Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
> Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.<<
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, the irony.  I think it will be a BIG SHOCK for the atheist indoctrinated cultists like abu afak.  I hope he doesn't work around electricity .




Is atheism a religion? - Atheist Alliance International








						Is atheism a religion? - Atheist Alliance International
					

‘Theism’ means ‘belief in a god or gods’. Believers usually sign up to the values and principles of a godly belief system: it’s an ideology. Theistic ideologies are commonly known as faiths or religions. Many ideologies have the suffix ‘ism’; for example, liberalism, socialism, and communism...




					www.atheistalliance.org
				



The prefix ‘a’ turns the meaning around to the negative, that is, ‘not a belief in a god’, so ‘atheism’ is as far from a faith or religion as it’s possible to get. Atheism is not a belief system† so that should end this article right here, but theists will likely not be satisfied.


----------



## surada

Why Creationism Isn't Science - Daylight Atheism
					

There is no doubt that the most central issue in the evolution/creationism debate is whether creationism deserves to be called science. Creationists argue




					www.patheos.com


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Lol.  *You're one of the worst here in regards to creation science.  The smarter students think there is something wrong with evolution as science does not back it up. * They think evolution is a myth except for natural selection which was founded by creationists.  Creationists have had the best scientists throughout history.  Atheist scientists are biased and have discarded real science.  Anyway, I'll put you down in the same level as abu afak which is pretty low.


Um. you're LYING for Jesus again wack job.
The smarter everyone backs real science.
You had to Ignore m two posting of the below.
Virtually everyone with brains know "Kweation Science"/Your life is raging Bull****.
oops!
`

*Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.

It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts,[2] theories and paradigms of geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archaeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics using creation science.[8] Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.[9]

In contrast with the views of creation science, *the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science Fails to qualify as scientific because it Lacks empirical support, supplies No testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.*[10][11]

*Courts, *most often in the United States where the question has been asked in the context of teaching the subject in public schools, *have consistently ruled since the 1980s that creation science is a religious view rather than a scientific one.

Historians,[12] philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a Pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts. *[13][14][15][16][17]

*Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly,[18] and even as a Dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences. *[19]...


Creation science - Wikipedia​


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Atheism isn't a religion. There is no worship involved. Evolution can be documented ..Beliefs cannot.


I told you not to lie.  Atheism is a religion because the atheists believe in no God/gods without any evidence.  Their atheist science assumes there is no creator.

God exists because the great flood (physical evidence) and Jesus' Resurrection (witnesses including Pontius Pilate) have been proven.

Evolution has been disproved as there is no observable evidence -- http://scienceagainstevolution.info/vol26-1.pdf (Missing link and the queer conundrum).


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Um. you're LYING for Jesus again wack job.
> The smarter everyone backs real science.
> You had to Ignore m two posting of the below.
> Virtually everyone with brains know "Kweation Science"/Your life is raging Bull****.
> oops!
> `
> 
> *Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.
> 
> It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts,[2] theories and paradigms of geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archaeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics using creation science.[8] Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.[9]
> 
> In contrast with the views of creation science, *the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science Fails to qualify as scientific because it Lacks empirical support, supplies No testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.*[10][11]
> 
> *Courts, *most often in the United States where the question has been asked in the context of teaching the subject in public schools, *have consistently ruled since the 1980s that creation science is a religious view rather than a scientific one.
> 
> Historians,[12] philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a Pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts. *[13][14][15][16][17]
> 
> *Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly,[18] and even as a Dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences. *[19]...
> 
> 
> Creation science - Wikipedia​


Your internet pedia is biased for the libtards.  One can get the true story here -- Creation science - Conservapedia.

Furthermore, you're getting too emotional.  It means that I have demonstrated the evidence while you still have nothing .


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Your internet pedia is biased for the libtards.  One can get the true story here -- Creation science - Conservapedia.
> 
> Furthermore, you're getting too emotional.  It means that I have demonstrated the evidence while you still have nothing .


Wiki Cites 133 Footnotes, all respected sources, in the article.
Yo 'conservapedia' says it all about bias.
As to emotional you just used 'libtards.'

You knowingly Lying Lunatic, you need help.

"Creation science" is like "Saharan Fishing expeditions," a giant Oxymoron.

A 100% Joke to All Real Science.
`


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> I told you not to lie.  Atheism is a religion because the atheists believe in no God/gods without any evidence.  Their atheist science assumes there is no creator.
> 
> God exists because the great flood (physical evidence) and Jesus' Resurrection (witnesses including Pontius Pilate) have been proven.
> 
> Evolution has been disproved as there is no observable evidence -- http://scienceagainstevolution.info/vol26-1.pdf (Missing link and the queer conundrum).



LOLOL. There was NO worldwide flood.. Its a morality tale based on a flood in the Euphrates river basin in 2900 BC. There is NO worldwide flood footprint.

There is plenty of observable evidence for evolution... see Madagascar.

Do you have any education? I know you  didn't go to college unless it was a Bible College, but did you finish High School?

Where did all of Madagascar's species come from?


			https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/091001_madagascar


----------



## surada

abu afak said:


> Wiki Cites 133 Footnotes, all respected sources, in the article.
> To 'conservapedia' says it all about bias.
> 
> You knowingly Lying Lunatic, you need help.
> `



Maybe he really can't help it for lack of basic education.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Wiki Cites 133 Footnotes, all respected sources, in the article.
> Yo 'conservapedia' says it all about bias.
> As to emotional you just used 'libtards.'
> 
> You knowingly Lying Lunatic, you need help.
> 
> "Creation science" is like "Saharan Fishing expeditions," a giant Oxymoron.
> 
> A 100% Joke to All Real Science.
> `


All of the footnotes are biased and based on atheism.  I already stated that atheist scientists only get published for atheist articles.  Can't you figure out anything for yourself?

I know you can't because you're a libtard.  That is the real joke in regards to real science which is creation science.  There is no doubt about it.

Moreover, you cannot provide anything that is observable.  OTOH, God's work is all observable as I already stated the universe, Earth, and everything in it is observable and goes back to God.  We started with light or EMS, start of spacetime, and separation of day and night and ended up with God-given natural selection.  Atheist science has no explanation nor anything that we can observe.  No one can't observe billions of years.  It means that evolution is a lie.  Only one of us can be right and the other wrong as we contradict each other.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> LOLOL. There was NO worldwide flood.. Its a morality tale based on a flood in the Euphrates river basin in 2900 BC. There is NO worldwide flood footprint.
> 
> There is plenty of observable evidence for evolution... see Madagascar.
> 
> Do you have any education? I know you  didn't go to college unless it was a Bible College, but did you finish High School?
> 
> Where did all of Madagascar's species come from?
> 
> 
> https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/091001_madagascar


Sure, there was a global flood as our planet is covered by 3/4 water, the fossils layers reflect a flood, the mid-Atlantic ridge goes around the world to show water rising up from under the ocean, Pangea separated into seven continents, and more.  All you have is a mythological tale based on the real global flood.  No myth story will go around the world.  The flood stories were based on a true event.  Soon, Noah's Ark will be excavated.  It has already been found.

As for education, I have a master's degree and can figure out science for myself.  The creation scientists were the greatest scientists in the world.  Your scientists will die and be soon forgotten.  (They will also end up in hell screaming their arses off.)

First, fossils are not billions of years old.  We found dinosaur fossils that still have C14 and soft tissue inside them.  Thus, your side is in gross error.


Finally, I was right in putting you in the same level as abu afak.  It is the lowest IQ level here .


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> All of the footnotes are biased and based on atheism.  I already stated that atheist scientists only get publi*shed for atheist articles.  Can't you figure out anything for yourself?*



*No, they're based on Science which is not religious just truth seeking.
If it makes you happier we could have them be literalist/Radical Hindus or Muslims...
Your sort.
So you make a big Mistake, many people of science are culturally Christian just not Raving Lunatic Literalist Like you, you Freak.

No/none/ZERO respectable persons in science are Genesis litter-alists like you.*




james bond said:


> *I know you can't because you're a libtard.  That is the real joke in regards to real science which is creation science.  There is no doubt about it.
> 
> Moreover, you cannot provide anything that is observable.  OTOH, God's work is all observable as I already stated the universe, Earth, and everything in it is observable and goes back to God.  We started with light or EMS, start of spacetime, and separation of day and night and ended up with God-given natural selection.  Atheist science has no explanation nor anything that we can observe.  No one can't observe billions of years.  It means that evolution is a lie.  Only one of us can be right and the other wrong as we contradict each other.*


Libtard is a word/insult with no meaning.
I just don't get my science from a bunch of primitive morons written 2000 years ago and take it literally.

You Clown.
You're the Christian Taliban.
Now stop hogging the keyboard and give the other patients a turn.


`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> *No, they're based on Science which is not religious just truth seeking.
> If it makes you happier we could have them be literalist/Radical Hindus or Muslims...
> Your sort.
> So you make a big Mistake, many people of science are culturally Christian just not Raving Lunatic Literalist Like you, you Freak.
> 
> No/none/ZERO respectable persons in science are Genesis litter-alists like you.*
> 
> 
> 
> Libtard is a word/insult with no meaning.
> I just don't get my science from a bunch of primitive morons written 2000 years ago and take it literally.
> 
> You Clown.
> You're the Christian Taliban.
> Now stop hogging the keyboard and give the other patients a turn.
> 
> 
> `


As I said, your atheist science is a religion science and is wrong.  Otherwise, you'd have evidence for no God/gods.  It's creationists who have evidence for God.  However, the atheists won't accept the proof even if it is foolproof.  They are that foolish.  So, the only proof for you, the atheists and the sinners will come in your deaths.  It comes in the evidence of pain and more pain after Judgement Day.





For the Christian ones who believe in atheist science, I don't know what happens to them.  Personally, I don't think you can take both sides.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> As I said, your atheist science is a religion science and is wrong.  Otherwise, you'd have evidence for no God/gods.  It's creationists who have evidence for God.  However, the atheists won't accept the proof even if it is foolproof.  They are that foolish.  So, the only proof for you, the atheists and the sinners will come in your deaths.  It comes in the evidence of pain and more pain after Judgement Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the Christian ones who believe in atheist science, I don't know what happens to them.  Personally, I don't think you can take both sides.


LOL
I'd have evidence for no gods?
But proving a negative is near impossible and your Fallacy/attempted burden shift.
YOU can't prove I'M NOT GOD!
LOL.

*YOU have no evidence Vishnu didn't create life either.

The Big Problem is YOU don't have any evidence Your god Does exist.*
And the burden is on YOU as you always attribute everything to that deity NOT in evidence.

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> LOL
> I'd have evidence for no gods?
> But proving a negative is near impossible your you Fallacy/attempted burden shift.
> 
> and you IDIOT, one can't have evidence gods don't exist
> *YOU have no evidence Vishnu didn't create life.
> 
> The Big Problem is YOU don't have any evidence Your god Does exist.*
> And the burden is on YOU as you always attribute everything to that deity NOT in evidence.
> 
> `


As usual, you and your side have no observable evidence while I can see someone in screaming in pain quite easily.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> As usual, you and *your side have no observable evidence *while I can see someone in screaming in pain quite easily.


First you did NOT/Could NOT answer my post above
You were totally porked.

Second/new
Science has ALL the observable evidence.
WTF!
You Wacky FREAK!
We didn't get fossils/Dinosaurs or telescopes/galaxies from the Bible you IDIOT
Jesus didn't send men to the moon or write Medical books or discover 'atheist' vaccines.

There's no observable evidence of a Christian god, just a bunch of fairy tales a bunch of primitives wrote.

You are Crazy.
You are brainwashed and
you are the biggest/Wackiest/Most Deluded LIAR I have ever seen.

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Science has ALL the observable evidence.
> WTF!
> You Wacky FREAK!
> We didn't get fossils/Dinosaurs or telescopes/galaxies from the Bible


First, you lost the argument due to ad hominem attacks.  It goes to show I am telling the truth and you can't respond.  I knew you couldn't keep up.

Again, there is no observable evidence for apes to humans nor dinosaurs to humans.  The creationists just have to humor the atheists and their scientists as they have gone looney tunes.


----------



## abu afak

You are crazy DISHONEST LYING Defrocked Heretic for a Fake god who must have no integrity, like you.
A Disgrace to what religion stands for.

YOU LOST on the ridiculous premise that I need Evidence there is no god!!!
LOFL.
Wrong.
You cant even prove I"M NOT GOD.
Clearly I AM the Truth God.


*You need Evidence there is a god and you have NEVER shown any. NEVER.  *(especially Observable)
So Knowing somewhere you were PORKED and have NONE...
YOU DISHONESTLY (Because you're a 4 yr old child caught) just keep changing the subject.
Beaten to a blithering flustered pulp by me.. serially.

You LOST (were Exposed as DELUDED)  on "Observable evidence" of which there is NONE for a 'god.'
And there is for Science everything we are, Live on and use today
Atheist inventions from Toilets, to AC, to Computers, to Vaccines.

YOU keep LOSING and shifting the argument
You've been beaten on every one and are FLUSTERED/panicking/posting gibberish.

You're not only down 50 IQ points, you're brainwashed crazy and Flustered that you are indeed getting Gutted in every idiotic new post/debate/ESCAPE attempt.

`


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> All of the footnotes are biased and based on atheism.  I already stated that atheist scientists only get published for atheist articles.  Can't you figure out anything for yourself?
> 
> I know you can't because you're a libtard.  That is the real joke in regards to real science which is creation science.  There is no doubt about it.
> 
> Moreover, you cannot provide anything that is observable.  OTOH, God's work is all observable as I already stated the universe, Earth, and everything in it is observable and goes back to God.  We started with light or EMS, start of spacetime, and separation of day and night and ended up with God-given natural selection.  Atheist science has no explanation nor anything that we can observe.  No one can't observe billions of years.  It means that evolution is a lie.  Only one of us can be right and the other wrong as we contradict each other.


Based on science you read as "based on atheism."
`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Based on science you read as "based on atheism."
> `


Macroevolution isn't science, but _faith_.  It led to people thinking it was science and believing in atheism.  IOW, they fell for the lie of macroevolution, but there is no evidence for it.  I'll accept common ancestor or ape-human fossils as valid evidence.

In fact, I disproved birds from dinosaurs evolution as birds existed at the same time as dinosaurs.  Their fossils were found in the same prehistoric layer.

See, you just criticize creationists in yours posts, but get defeated by the science.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Last fiscal year, the Smithsonian Institute was given well over a billion hard-earned tax dollars.

This is what they use it for?  To provide advice to people on one side of a religious debate?


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Last fiscal year, the Smithsonian Institute was given well over a billion hard-earned tax dollars.
> 
> This is what they use it for?  To provide advice to people on one side of a religious debate?


What religious debate?

Your use of non-sequitur comments, completely devoid of substance or context is concerning.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> Last fiscal year, the Smithsonian Institute was given well over a billion hard-earned tax dollars.
> 
> This is what they use it for?  To provide advice to people on one side of a religious debate?


`
It's not a "debate" it's a Science EDU (and fact) for the religiously impaired/Indoctrinated.
`


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> It's not a "debate" it's a Science EDU for the religiously impaired/Indoctrinated.
> `


So tax dollars are spent to denigrate certain religious beliefs?


----------



## Mac-7

AFrench2 said:


> Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.


God has a lot of time


----------



## braalian

CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = settled!
> 
> Can I get an Amen?
> 
> We have Concensus!


Nope, they don’t have an explanation for that.

We will never know everything. That doesn’t make the stuff we *do* know any less true.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> God has a lot of time





braalian said:


> Nope, they don’t have an explanation for that.
> 
> We will never know everything. That doesn’t make the stuff we *do* know any less true.


Sure we do. 

Organic chemicals interacted trillions of times a minute over 100s of millions of years and eventually produced complex, stable molecules and structures.


----------



## Mac-7

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sure we do.
> 
> Organic chemicals interacted trillions of times a minute over 100s of millions of years and eventually produced complex, stable molecules and structures.


With no one to nudge the molecules in the right direction its just dumb luck

and there is not enough luck in the universe  to arrive at the complex world we live in


----------



## Hollie

Mac-7 said:


> God has a lot of time


That's because they don't have much to do. 

Humanity developing an understanding of the natural world leaves less chores for the gods.


----------



## Mac-7

Hollie said:


> That's because they don't have much to do.
> 
> Humanity developing an understanding of the natural world leaves less chores for the gods.


Regarding creation God’s work was done long before the first God denier came along


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> With no one to nudge the molecules in the right direction its just dumb luck


Wrong. The laws of the universe are quite clear, and selection is not lucky or random. That's why massive objects in space do not appear in random shapes. Who "nudged" them to ALL become spheroids? Zeus? Zoroaster?

Why is the water molecule always the same shape? Luck? Magic? A special water sky daddy that inspects every water molecule for correctness?

The things you are saying  are demonstrably false. But your religion is talking for you now,so this is surely a waste of time.

Of course membranes that are hydrophobic on one side and hydrophilic on one side formed. Those chemicals were detined to be forced into such structures by the laws of physics and their environments. The more stable such structures persisted, becausee that's what stability is.


----------



## Hollie

Mac-7 said:


> Regarding creation God’s work was done long before the first God denier came along


That's odd because others, who have gods in competition with your gods would make the same claim about their creator gods. How far down on the hierarchical list of gods  are your gods?


----------



## Flopper

abu afak said:


> Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
> Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.
> 
> *HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION*
> Smithsonian Magazine -- 4-19-2018
> 
> *""Rick Potts is no atheist-evolutionist-Darwinist.* That often comes as a surprise to the faith communities he works with as head of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Human Origins Program in Washington, D.C.
> 
> Raised Protestant — with, he likes to say, “an emphasis on the ‘protest’” — the paleoanthropologist spends his weekends singing in a choir that sings both sacred and secular songs. At 18, he became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War...
> [....]That’s why, for him, human evolution is the perfect topic to break down entrenched barriers between people in an increasingly polarized, politicized world.
> [.....]
> If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: *Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.*
> 
> What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, *among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?*
> [.....]
> [.....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution
> 
> 
> For two years, researchers from the Smithsonian traveled the country explaining the science of our shared origins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com


No one paid any attention to Darwin until scholars explained what Origin of the Species was all about.  Man was not created by God but evolved from a monkey like creature.  If Darwin had just made a footnote in his book that said, Note: With the exception of man who God created then all would have been well.

The only way to make religion compatible with Evolution would be to consider the story of creation to be an allegorical tale; that is the creation was not a supernatural event but a scientific event being guided by the hand of God.  Since man lacked the ability to understand the science of creation, such a tale had to be created to explain the creation in terms that it could be understood by all.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> So tax dollars are spent to denigrate certain religious beliefs?


Yes, child sacrifice is no longer acceptable either.
`


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> Yes, child sacrifice is no longer acceptable either.
> `


Why do I think you don't refer to abortion?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Organic chemicals interacted trillions of times a minute over 100s of millions of years and eventually produced complex, stable molecules and structures.


You don't have any scientific evidence nor experimental evidence for that happening.  It would mean spontaneous generation/abiogenesis happened.  But that was disproven by Pasteur.  What it really means that you are dirty skunk of a liar and need my boots pressed against your throat and face.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> You don't have any scientific evidence nor experimental evidence for that happening.  It would mean spontaneous generation/abiogenesis happened.  But that was disproven by Pasteur.  What it really means that you are dirty skunk of a liar and need my boots pressed against your throat and face.


O you could just say/agree we don' know yet.
Like so many phenomenon we fabricated a god for and turned out that was wrong.

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> O you could just say/agree we don' know yet.
> Like so many phenomenon we fabricated a god for and turned out that was wrong.
> 
> `


Lol, you're a stupid atheist POS and don't belong in the _science_ section.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wrong. The laws of the universe are quite clear, and selection is not lucky or random. That's why massive objects in space do not appear in random shapes. Who "nudged" them to ALL become spheroids? Zeus? Zoroaster?
> 
> Why is the water molecule always the same shape? Luck? Magic? A special water sky daddy that inspects every water molecule for correctness?
> 
> The things you are saying  are demonstrably false. But your religion is talking for you now,so this is surely a waste of time.
> 
> Of course membranes that are hydrophobic on one side and hydrophilic on one side formed. Those chemicals were detined to be forced into such structures by the laws of physics and their environments. The more stable such structures persisted, becausee that's what stability is.


I see your faith is blinding you, the laws don't work everywhere in the universe good God you act like God or dare I say a narcissist


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> O you could just say/agree we don' know yet.
> Like so many phenomenon we fabricated a god for and turned out that was wrong.
> 
> `


You have become the PRIME EXAMPLE with that wishful slip of thought.  There is no place for religion such as atheism in the science section.  It just goes to show that you do not understand science when you use wishful thinking.  You should be banned from S&I for bringing the atheist religion to this forum when science does not back it up.  2 weeks?  A month would make me lol for weeks lol.

It's no wonder in the years I've known you that you do not bring any experiments here and expound on them.  This is another topic that belongs in The Rubber Room.

For example, I've been looking at mag-lev technlogy and former POTUS Donald Trump supported it to be used more in the US.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> "To call Atheism a Religion is to call bald a hair color.


Signs that atheism is a religion


The religious nature of atheism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another.
Ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements like a religion.
Uses big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies like a religion.
Has a dogma like religion which is based upon materialism, primitive instincts, uniformity and the deification of man.
Has a moral code which sees no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> You have become the PRIME EXAMPLE with that wishful slip of thought.  There is no place for religion such as atheism in the science section.  It just goes to show that you do not understand science when you use wishful thinking.  You should be banned from S&I for bringing the atheist religion to this forum when science does not back it up.  2 weeks?  A month would make me lol for weeks lol.
> 
> It's no wonder in the years I've known you that you do not bring any experiments here and expound on them.  This is another topic that belongs in The Rubber Room.
> 
> For example, I've been looking at mag-lev technlogy and former POTUS Donald Trump supported it to be used more in the US.


`





-

*the OCD troll 'ding' is now on ignore due to endless stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits.
Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, to do the same. ie,
Look at his 4/5 (now 50/60, and counting) vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.'
Juvenile last-worder GOT to have his grudge sated.*

`


----------



## ding

Atheism has elevated Darwinism to a religion.   Too bad the fossil record doesn't support it.  The fossil record shows long periods of stasis followed by rapid change.


----------



## Hollie

Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution​
Gob smak’em.









						Evolution Education in the U.S. Is Getting Better
					

The percentage of public school bio teachers who present it as the broad consensus view among scientists—without presenting the creationist “alternative”—has increased markedly since 2007




					www.scientificamerican.com
				



Between 2007 and 2019, there definitely was progress: from 51 percent of high school biology teachers reporting emphasizing evolution and not creationism in 2007 to 67 percent in 2019. It was matched by a drop from 23 to 12 percent of teachers who offer mixed messages by endorsing both evolution and creationism as a valid scientific alternative to evolution, from 18 to 15 percent of teachers who endorse neither evolution nor creationism, and from 8.6 to 5.6 percent of teachers who endorse creationism while not endorsing evolution.





Credit: National Center for Science Education


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Wyatt earp said:


> I see your faith is blinding you, the laws don't work everywhere in the universe good God you act like God or dare I say a narcissist


No faith here. Sorry. Your weak attempt to place scientific knowledge on the same shelf as your magical horseshit has never worked and will never work, so you can stop wasting your time.

Same goes for ding the desperate charlatan, whose whiny crap about atheim being a religion has been relegated to an anonymous message board where he shouts it to himself.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No faith here. Sorry. Your weak attempt to place scientific knowledge on the same shelf as your magical horseshit has never worked and will never work, so you can stop wasting your time.
> 
> Same goes for ding the desperate charlatan, whose whiny crap about atheim being a religion has been relegated to an anonymous message board where he shouts it to himself.


Once again you claimed the laws work everywhere in the Universe, write a paper and get laughed at


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Wyatt earp said:


> Once again you claimed the laws work everywhere in the Universe, write a paper and get laughed at


Go ahead and write a paper saying they were different on earth's surface 4 billion years ago.

See who gets laughed at. Hint: it will be you.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No faith here. Sorry. Your weak attempt to place scientific knowledge on the same shelf as your magical horseshit has never worked and will never work, so you can stop wasting your time.
> 
> Same goes for ding the desperate charlatan, whose whiny crap about atheim being a religion has been relegated to an anonymous message board where he shouts it to himself.


That's exactly the type of behavior one would expect to see from a religious fanatic who felt his religion was being attacked.  But for the record I'm not challenging biological evolution.  I'm challenging the mechanism of biological evolution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> That's exactly the type of behavior one would expect to see from a religious fanatic who felt his religion was being attacked.  But for the record I'm not challenging biological evolution.  I'm challenging the mechanism of biological evolution.


Haha, predictable ding self soothing platitude. Getting called "militant" in 3...2...1...


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Haha, predictable ding self soothing platitude. Getting called "militant" in 3...2...1...


Your truculent behavior is self evident.  It's a hallmark of your personality.  You're an angry dude.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution​
> Gob smak’em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution Education in the U.S. Is Getting Better
> 
> 
> The percentage of public school bio teachers who present it as the broad consensus view among scientists—without presenting the creationist “alternative”—has increased markedly since 2007
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Between 2007 and 2019, there definitely was progress: from 51 percent of high school biology teachers reporting emphasizing evolution and not creationism in 2007 to 67 percent in 2019. It was matched by a drop from 23 to 12 percent of teachers who offer mixed messages by endorsing both evolution and creationism as a valid scientific alternative to evolution, from 18 to 15 percent of teachers who endorse neither evolution nor creationism, and from 8.6 to 5.6 percent of teachers who endorse creationism while not endorsing evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Credit: National Center for Science Education


This is heavily BIASED science as evolution isn't settled science as macroevolution was disproved.  All it's based on is those papers that today's atheist scientists wrote to further their careers.

I was reading about magnetic levitation and found today's high speed trains can get us from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 45 mins.  It is about 383 mi. or 617 km by car which takes 5 hrs 30 mins.  That's prolly faster than by air taking into consideration airport/airline logistics.  It is about 383 mi. or 617 km by car which takes 5 hrs 30 mins.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> `
> View attachment 597401
> 
> -
> 
> *the OCD troll 'ding' is now on ignore due to endless stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits.
> Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, to do the same. ie,
> Look at his 4/5 (now 50/60, and counting) vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.'
> Juvenile last-worder GOT to have his grudge sated.*
> 
> `


Like I said, the majority believes in creation over evolution.  You lose with your own post.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Like I said, the majority believes in creation over evolution.  You lose with your own post.


argumentum ad populum

The truth is not a general poll it's Evidence and Facts,
If it's at least a more valid poll of Experts on the topic AND... only if they overwhelmingly agree.
Then it's called a consensus.
In this case an overwhelming consensus of scientists and Biologists.

`


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> argumentum ad populum
> 
> The truth is not a general poll it's Evidence and Facts,
> If it's at least a more valid poll of Experts on the topic AND... only if they overwhelmingly agree.
> Then it's called a consensus.
> In this case an overwhelming consensus of scientists and Biologists.
> 
> `


Do you have a poll to show that?  

Hopefully from the same source you got your poll that showed that less than a third of U.S. adults buy into Darwinian evolution as the explanation for life on Earth.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> Do you have a poll to show that?
> 
> Hopefully from the same source you got your poll that showed that less than a third of U.S. adults buy into Darwinian evolution as the explanation for life on Earth.


Maybe if you went to Liberty University's 'science'/Bio courses you would think differently?

*""...Nearly all (around 97%) of the Scientific community accepts Evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.*[1][2] Scientific associations *have Strongly Rebutted and Refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents.*[3].".."









						Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




`


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> Maybe if you went to Liberty University's 'science'/Bio courses you would think differently?
> 
> *""...Nearly all (around 97%) of the Scientific community accepts Evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.*[1][2] Scientific associations *have Strongly Rebutted and Refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents.*[3].".."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `


There you go!

If argumentum ad populum and argument from authority were not fallacies, you'd even have a point!


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> There you go!
> 
> If argumentum ad populum and argument from authority were not fallacies, you'd even have a point!


Neither of those are applicable you IDIOT.
and you were Answered/Crushed again.

It's funny, I taught you a new fallacy/term and you don't know how to use it.
In fact you Moron, YOU asked me for a poll/a-a-p then complain when you get one!
LOL

Seymour Flops Again/Every time.
Now been LAUGHED off the board with his stupid and fallacious "apparent design."

`


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> Neither of those are applicable you IDIOT.
> and you were Answered/Crushed again.


One or both of them is applicable.  It depends on what you thought your poll proved.


abu afak said:


> It's funny, I taught you a new fallacy/term and you don't know how to use it.
> In fact you Moron, YOU asked me for a poll/a-a-p then complain when you get one!
> LOL


I honestly didn't think you'd be stupid enough to post another poll,  your first having blown up on you so badly.


abu afak said:


> Seymour Flops Again/Every time.
> Now been LAUGHED off the board with his stupid and fallacious "apparent design."
> 
> `


You obsess over me in an unhealthy way.

Please seek help.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> One or both of them is applicable.  It depends on what you thought your poll proved.
> 
> I honestly didn't think you'd be stupid enough to post another poll,  your first having blown up on you so badly.
> 
> You obsess over me in an unhealthy way.
> 
> Please seek help.


1. You Idiot.
YOU asked for a poll/opinion.. Then complain when get it as a-a-p! (I just taught you!)
You DISHONEST POS.

2. That Consensus (I previously mentioned AND Explained) of Scientists/experts on the Topic is ergo also NOT an 'appeal to authority' fallacy.
YOU IDIOT.
You know NOTHING.









						Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority
					

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.



					yourlogicalfallacyis.com
				




appeal to authority​​You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.​
It's important to note that *this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts* who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.​- - - - -
- - - - -


*You are so G-D STUPID it's unbelievable.

Even when refuting you one has to do it on a 6th grade level and explain every term so that you understand it.

And then you DISHONESTLY deflect it.*

`


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> 1. You Idiot.
> YOU asked for a poll/opinion.. Then complain when get it as a-a-p! (I just taught you!)
> You DISHONEST POS.
> 
> 2. That Consensus (I previously mentioned AND Explained) of Scientists/experts on the Topic is ergo also NOT an 'appeal to authority' fallacy.
> YOU IDIOT.
> You know NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority
> 
> 
> You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.
> 
> 
> 
> yourlogicalfallacyis.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> appeal to authority​​You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.​
> It's important to note that *this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts* who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.​- - - - -
> - - - - -
> 
> 
> *You are so G-D STUPID it's unbelievable.
> 
> Even when refuting you one has to do it on a 6th grade level and explain every term so that you understand it.
> 
> And then you DISHONESTLY deflect it.*
> 
> `


Clearly I should not have started responding to you again, abu.

I see now that you are not stable enough to be debating on a forum such as this.  A complete mental collapse seems imminent, and I don't want to be accused of contributing to it.

Goodbye, and good luck!


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Clearly I should not have started responding to you again, abu.
> 
> I see now that you are not stable enough to be debating on a forum such as this.  A complete mental collapse seems imminent, and I don't want to be accused of contributing to it.
> 
> Goodbye, and good luck!


When you can’t defend your claims and you contradict your own arguments, it’s in your best interest to, you know, run away like a girl.

Maybe open another thread:
Evidence for Design #8,341 - The Complete Guide of Contributing Nothing As Evidence For “The Gawds Did It™“​


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> Clearly I should not have started responding to you again, abu.
> I see now that you are not stable enough to be debating on a forum such as this.  A complete mental collapse seems imminent, and I don't want to be accused of contributing to it.
> Goodbye, and good luck!


You HAVE to stop responding to me because I've DESTROYED you and your "apparent design" BS many times.
(so now it's I-R)
I told you many times and proved to you, COULDN'T debate me.

You are a LAUGHING STOCK here because of Me.
ie
Most proximately Here





						My thoughts on evolution and Darwinism
					

Seymour Flops said: The apparent design means that the burden of proof is on those claiming some other theory not involving design, but random processes.  Hysterical! I'm claiming I don't know how life started for one. You claim the Designer/god did it. Burden is on You.  and second: Proof is a...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				


​


> Seymour Flops said:
> *The apparent design means that the Burden of Proof is on those claiming some Other theory *not involving design, but random processes.​


""Hysterical!​I'm claiming I don't know how life started for one.​You claim the Designer/god did it.​Burden is on You.​​and second:​Proof is a false burden in science.​Evidence is where the meat is.​*"apparent design" is a mere empty personal aesthetic OPINION like 'beautiful.'*​*I have to "Prove it's not beautiful??"*​​In fact, *you are so Dishonest in trying to Shift the Burden, you weaken your claim from "Design" for which you have/have posted NO Evidence, to "apparent design" a mere aesthetic opinion.*​Who the F cares!​vs​"Actual Evolution" Which has overwhelming EVIDENCE.​Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)​*I could also weaken that to "apparent evolution" to try and shift the burden to you, but I don't have to because I have Huge EVIDENCE of ACTUAL Evolution.*​​More BS semantics.​You are and remain a FRAUD.​You Cannot debate me.""""​
-- - - - - -​​You are blindingly Stupid, and even More DISHONEST.
And you were made a Joke of by Me.
​`​


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> You HAVE to stop responding to me because I've DESTROYED you and your "apparent design" BS many times.
> (so now it's I-R)
> I told you many times and proved to you, COULDN'T debate me.
> 
> You are a LAUGHING STOCK here because of Me.
> ie
> Most proximately Here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My thoughts on evolution and Darwinism
> 
> 
> Seymour Flops said: The apparent design means that the burden of proof is on those claiming some other theory not involving design, but random processes.  Hysterical! I'm claiming I don't know how life started for one. You claim the Designer/god did it. Burden is on You.  and second: Proof is a...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> ""Hysterical!​I'm claiming I don't know how life started for one.​You claim the Designer/god did it.​Burden is on You.​​and second:​Proof is a false burden in science.​Evidence is where the meat is.​*"apparent design" is a mere empty personal aesthetic OPINION like 'beautiful.'*​*I have to "Prove it's not beautiful??"*​​In fact, *you are so Dishonest in trying to Shift the Burden, you weaken your claim from "Design" for which you have/have posted NO Evidence, to "apparent design" a mere aesthetic opinion.*​Who the F cares!​vs​"Actual Evolution" Which has overwhelming EVIDENCE.​​Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)​​*I could also weaken that to "apparent evolution" to try and shift the burden to you, but I don't have to because I have Huge EVIDENCE of ACTUAL Evolution.*​​More BS semantics.​You are and remain a FRAUD.​You Cannot debate me.""""​
> -- - - - - -​
> ​​You are blindingly Stupid, and even More DISHONEST.
> And you were made a Joke of by Me.
> ​`​


I don't believe that that is true, but you are free to believe whatever you choose . . .


----------



## Batcat

cnm said:


> It was founded by venal scoundrels wishing to break treaties with the Indians in order to obtain the Indians' lands and to avoid paying for the wars that had protected them against the French and the Indians while basing an economy on unpaid labour. Quite normal, really.


Last week I heard the United States was formed by people trying to preserve slavery in the South. Every week it is something different. 

I personally think the United States was founded by a group of very intelligent men who asked themselves.”Why can’t the citizens of a nation run it rather than some monarch or king?’ 

The idea they came up with ended up creating what is currently the greatest nation in the world. Unfortunately the corruption at the highest levels of our government and in our two major political Parties \will lead to the break up of our nation In a decade or two.


----------



## abu afak

And Seymour Flops just LIED (of course) that he is Not responding to me any more.
yet he just did.


On the last page we see why again.
He's a raging liar.
who gets out on every page in the section. Most, multiple times.



> Seymour Flops said:
> *Do you have a Poll to show that?*
> Hopefully from the same source you got your poll that showed that less than a third of U.S. adults buy into Darwinian evolution as the explanation for life on Earth.





> abu afak said:
> Maybe if you went to Liberty University's 'science'/Bio courses you would think differently?
> *""...Nearly all (around 97%) of the Scientific community accepts Evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.*[1][2] Scientific associations *have Strongly Rebutted and Refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents.*[3].".."
> Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia​





> Seymour Flops said:
> There you go!
> *If argumentum ad populum and argument from authority were not fallacies, you'd even have a point!*





> abu afak said:
> *Neither of those are applicable you IDIOT, and you were Answered/Crushed again.*
> It's funny, I taught you a new fallacy/term and you don't know how to use it.
> *In fact, you Moron, YOU asked me for a poll/a-a-p then complain when you get one!*
> LOL
> Seymour Flops Again/Every time.
> Now been LAUGHED off the board with his stupid and fallacious "apparent design"




`


----------



## Wyatt earp

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Go ahead and write a paper saying they were different on earth's surface 4 billion years ago.
> 
> See who gets laughed at. Hint: it will be you.


Don't have to gravity has been proven to not work everywhere in the universe


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> And Seymour Flops just LIED (of course) that he is Not responding to me any more.
> yet he just did.
> 
> 
> On the last page we see why again.
> He's a raging liar.
> who gets out on every page in the section. Most, multiple times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `


You liar!

Here's what I said:

*Clearly I should not have started responding to you again, abu.

I see now that you are not stable enough to be debating on a forum such as this. A complete mental collapse seems imminent, and I don't want to be accused of contributing to it.

Goodbye, and good luck!*

I did not say that I am NOT responding to you anymore.

I just don't want to be accused of contributing to your imminent mental collapse.  

Do you plan on accusing me of that?  Yes, or no?


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> *Clearly I should not have started responding to you again, abu.
> I see Now that you are not stable enough to be debating on a forum such as this.*
> A complete mental collapse seems imminent, and* I don't want to be accused of contributing to it.
> 
> Goodbye, and good luck!*


That IS a no-further-response sign OFF you LIAR.
You can't stop LYING!
*Paraphrasing: (('you had stopped responding, and restarted, BUT you "see now" 'abu is not stable enough'.. and "don't want to be accused of Contributing to my collapse."..so will stop responding..
and say 'Goodbye and Good luck,' in case there was any doubt))*

Not only that, you never stopped responding to me in the past!!!! except when you were 100% Refuted/Stump/Porked.
Otherwise you tried, however disingenuously/deflectingly/goofily.
I never even noticed previous 'stops' just 'stumps.' LOL, News to me! 
You have no choice but to deflect because I refute you 100%. Oft several times on a page, as the page before this one.
.


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> That IS a no-response sign OFF you LIAR.
> You can't stop LYING!
> 
> Not only that, you never stopped responding to me in the past.. except when you were 100% Refuted/Stump/Porked.
> Otherwise you tried, however disingenuously/deflectingly/goofily.
> You have no choice but to deflect because I refute you 100%. Oft several times on a page, as the page before this one.
> .


You post in that awkward grammatical style to cover up that you have another account, I take it?


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> You post in that awkward grammatical style to cover up that you have another account, I take it?


Another Deflection (to grammar) because you were caught LYING Again!!
(about not responding to me/Signing off to further replies.)
I elaborated/Outed Another one of your LIES.
At least HALF your posts, and ALL of them to me are Lies.
Flops has made 495 posts and about 700 Lies.
Sociopath.


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> Another Deflection (to grammar) because you were caught LYING Again.
> (about not responding to me/Signing off to further replies.)
> I elaborated/Outed another one of your LIES.
> At least HALF your posts, and ALL of them to me are Lies.
> *Flops has made 495 posts and about 700 Lies.*
> `


What's the actual counts?


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> *Clearly I should not have started responding to you again, abu.
> I see Now that you are not stable enough to be debating on a forum such as this.*
> A complete mental collapse seems imminent, and* I don't want to be accused of contributing to it.
> 
> Goodbye, and good luck!*





Seymour Flops said:


> *You liar!
> I did not say that I am NOT responding to you anymore.*
> I just don't want to be accused of contributing to your imminent mental collapse.
> Do you plan on accusing me of that?  Yes, or no?



That (the first above) IS a no-further-response sign OFF by Pathological liar/sociopath Flops.
He can't stop LYING! Even about what he just said on the same page!
*Paraphrasing: (('Flops had stopped responding and Regrets he restarted, And he "sees Now" 'abu is not stable enough'.. and "doesn't want to be accused of Contributing to my collapse."..so will stop responding..
and says 'Goodbye and Good luck,' in case there was any doubt))*

Not only that, (Another LIE!) he Didn't stop responding to me in the past!!!! except when he was 100% Refuted/Stumped/Porked.
Otherwise he tried, however disingenuously/deflectingly/goofily.
I never even noticed previous 'stops' just 'stumps' (and lots of deflections). LOL, News to me! 
Flops has no choice but to Deflect (ie, to "grammar") because I refute him 100%. Oft several times on a page, as the page before this one.

Pure Sociopath.
Worst case I've seen.
Every sentence is a lie or deflection from getting caught in one. (or five)
He's panicking now because he has been outed.
They are used to lying hourly, but verbally.
Here/recorded format, they can be Confronted/outed with their own words of even minutes ago.
`


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> That (the first above) IS a no-further-response sign OFF by Pathological liar/sociopath Flops.
> He can't stop LYING!
> *Paraphrasing: (('you had stopped responding, and restarted, BUT you "see now" 'abu is not stable enough'.. and "don't want to be accused of Contributing to my collapse."..so will stop responding..
> and say 'Goodbye and Good luck,' in case there was any doubt))*
> 
> Not only that, you never stopped responding to me in the past!!!! except when you were 100% Refuted/Stump/Porked.
> Otherwise you tried, however disingenuously/deflectingly/goofily.
> I never even noticed previous 'stops' just 'stumps.' LOL, News to me!
> You have no choice but to deflect because I refute you 100%. Oft several times on a page, as the page before this one.


mm-hmm . . .


----------



## Colin norris

AFrench2 said:


> Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.


He didn't set out to prove God didn't exist.  He already knew that like you


----------



## Colin norris

Thoth001 said:


> Do you believe we literally evolved from Apes?


Yes I do.  I not only believe it.  I know it because evolution and DNA is proven fact.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> argumentum ad populum
> 
> The truth is not a general poll it's Evidence and Facts,
> If it's at least a more valid poll of Experts on the topic AND... only if they overwhelmingly agree.
> Then it's called a consensus.
> In this case an overwhelming consensus of scientists and Biologists.
> 
> `


I got my evidence and facts through _faith_, seven days of creation, creation science and the Bible. With that I have why the universe, Earth and everything in it are here (and only here), creation, the global flood, i.e. separation of the OT people and NT people, Jesus coming the first time, dying for our sins, and being Resurrected. I also have the future with the second coming of Jesus and the Faithful receiving eternal life and happiness. Thus, the truth is either with God or with human experts. I have the majority consensus on God, the Bible, creation and what I stated in the above, i.e. it's not just argumentum ad populum. It means you are wrong once more in your post saying that.

What in terms of evidence and facts do you have with your experts, let alone a consensus, and evolution?

I keep asking for that and all I get are excuses and complaints about creationism.


----------



## james bond

Colin norris said:


> He didn't set out to prove God didn't exist. He already knew that like you


You continue to be WRONG lol.

"Bookshops and the internet are well-stocked with discussions of Darwin’s views and the implications of his theory of evolution for religion. Many religious writers today accuse Darwin of atheism. Some popular proponents of atheism also enlist Darwin to their cause. Even while Darwin was still alive there were widely varying descriptions of his religious opinions - which he kept mostly private. In 1880 the Austrian writer Ernst von Hesse-Wartegg visited Darwin at his home, Down House, in Kent. The coachman who drove Hesse-Wartegg from the train station at Orpington opined of the famous Mr. Darwin: "Ha es en enfidel, Sar- yes, an enfidel — an unbeliever! and the people say he never went to church!”. The passage quoted here was actually marked in Darwin’s copy of this German newspaper (the Frankfurter Zeitung und Handelsblatt) - no doubt it amused Darwin as much as the German attempt to capture the Kentish accent through phonetic spelling.


Other commentators were more generous in their interpretations of Darwin’s religiosity. The modern myth of a timeless conflict of science and religion was far from the reality experienced by Victorian readers who first turned the pages of Darwin’s _Origin of Species_ and _Descent of Man_ (1871). It is now widely forgotten that the scientific debate over the theory of evolution was over within twenty years of the publication of _Origin of Species_. Yet how could that be given that the Victorians were, by and large, far more religious than people generally are today and the scientific evidence for evolution was far less complete than it is now? The explanation is that for very many Victorians the choice was not between God and science, religion or evolution, but between different notions of how God designed nature. It was already widely accepted that fixed natural laws (or secondary laws) had been discovered that explained natural phenomena from astronomy and chemistry to physiology and geology. Darwin, it was believed, had simply discovered a new law of nature designed by God. And it seems this was how Darwin himself viewed at least part of the religious implications of his evolutionary theory. This also makes it all the more understandable that Darwin was buried by the nation in Westminster Abbey in 1882.







A few of Darwin’s private letters referring to religion were published near the end of his life and more after his death. These have been very widely quoted in the voluminous discussions of Darwin’s religious views. Searching for other material which might have bearing on the question of his religious views, I turned to _Darwin Online_, an online repository of Darwin's corpus where it is possible to search the works by key term. Putting in terms like 'atheist' and 'atheism' I found what seems to be a previously unknown discussion of this question by Darwin himself. The passage occurs in Darwin’s lengthy 1879 “Preliminary notice” to the English translation of Ernst Krause’s biography of Darwin’s freethinking paternal grandfather, the poet and physician Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802). Darwin addressed the question of whether his grandfather was an atheist:




Dr. Darwin has been frequently called an atheist, whereas in every one of his works distinct expressions may be found showing that he fully believed in God as the Creator of the universe. For instance, in the 'Temple of Nature,' published posthumously, he writes: "Perhaps all the productions of nature are in their progress to greater perfection! an idea countenanced by modern discoveries and deductions concerning the progressive formation of the solid parts of the terraqueous globe, and consonant to the dignity of the creator of all things." He concludes one chapter in 'Zoonomia' with the words of the Psalmist: "The heavens declare the Glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handiwork."









						Was Charles Darwin an Atheist?
					

Leading Darwin expert and founder of Darwin Online, John van Wyhe, challenges the popular assumption that Darwin's theory of evolution corresponded with a loss of religious belief.




					publicdomainreview.org


----------



## Quasar44

AFrench2 

Waste of time 
Just respect what they think even through evolution is as factual as the laws of thermodynamics and gravity


----------



## Colin norris

james bond said:


> You continue to be WRONG lol.
> 
> "Bookshops and the internet are well-stocked with discussions of Darwin’s views and the implications of his theory of evolution for religion. Many religious writers today accuse Darwin of atheism. Some popular proponents of atheism also enlist Darwin to their cause. Even while Darwin was still alive there were widely varying descriptions of his religious opinions - which he kept mostly private. In 1880 the Austrian writer Ernst von Hesse-Wartegg visited Darwin at his home, Down House, in Kent. The coachman who drove Hesse-Wartegg from the train station at Orpington opined of the famous Mr. Darwin: "Ha es en enfidel, Sar- yes, an enfidel — an unbeliever! and the people say he never went to church!”. The passage quoted here was actually marked in Darwin’s copy of this German newspaper (the Frankfurter Zeitung und Handelsblatt) - no doubt it amused Darwin as much as the German attempt to capture the Kentish accent through phonetic spelling.
> 
> 
> Other commentators were more generous in their interpretations of Darwin’s religiosity. The modern myth of a timeless conflict of science and religion was far from the reality experienced by Victorian readers who first turned the pages of Darwin’s _Origin of Species_ and _Descent of Man_ (1871). It is now widely forgotten that the scientific debate over the theory of evolution was over within twenty years of the publication of _Origin of Species_. Yet how could that be given that the Victorians were, by and large, far more religious than people generally are today and the scientific evidence for evolution was far less complete than it is now? The explanation is that for very many Victorians the choice was not between God and science, religion or evolution, but between different notions of how God designed nature. It was already widely accepted that fixed natural laws (or secondary laws) had been discovered that explained natural phenomena from astronomy and chemistry to physiology and geology. Darwin, it was believed, had simply discovered a new law of nature designed by God. And it seems this was how Darwin himself viewed at least part of the religious implications of his evolutionary theory. This also makes it all the more understandable that Darwin was buried by the nation in Westminster Abbey in 1882.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few of Darwin’s private letters referring to religion were published near the end of his life and more after his death. These have been very widely quoted in the voluminous discussions of Darwin’s religious views. Searching for other material which might have bearing on the question of his religious views, I turned to _Darwin Online_, an online repository of Darwin's corpus where it is possible to search the works by key term. Putting in terms like 'atheist' and 'atheism' I found what seems to be a previously unknown discussion of this question by Darwin himself. The passage occurs in Darwin’s lengthy 1879 “Preliminary notice” to the English translation of Ernst Krause’s biography of Darwin’s freethinking paternal grandfather, the poet and physician Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802). Darwin addressed the question of whether his grandfather was an atheist:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Darwin has been frequently called an atheist, whereas in every one of his works distinct expressions may be found showing that he fully believed in God as the Creator of the universe. For instance, in the 'Temple of Nature,' published posthumously, he writes: "Perhaps all the productions of nature are in their progress to greater perfection! an idea countenanced by modern discoveries and deductions concerning the progressive formation of the solid parts of the terraqueous globe, and consonant to the dignity of the creator of all things." He concludes one chapter in 'Zoonomia' with the words of the Psalmist: "The heavens declare the Glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handiwork."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was Charles Darwin an Atheist?
> 
> 
> Leading Darwin expert and founder of Darwin Online, John van Wyhe, challenges the popular assumption that Darwin's theory of evolution corresponded with a loss of religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> publicdomainreview.org


Again, he was investigating evolution and it is now a known fact. Religion has rejected it but of course They would. 
If anyone  choses to believe in some celestial dictatorship, that's fine but they are wrong.  
Btw.  That was well plagairised. 
Stick with your bible and let intelligent people do the leg work


----------



## james bond

Colin norris said:


> Again, he was investigating evolution and it is now a known fact. Religion has rejected it but of course They would.
> If anyone  choses to believe in some celestial dictatorship, that's fine but they are wrong.
> Btw.  That was well plagairised.
> Stick with your bible and let intelligent people do the leg work


You keep getting it backwards.  Evolution isn't science as scientific experiments nor observation backs it up.  It's more a religion except the atheist scientists kept writing papers on it in order to get accreditation and continued funding.  Those who think of themselves as atheists bought those papers.  It's just BS that kept on growing.  There are no facts with evolution.  You can't even provide one.  There isn't any history associated with evolution except for Judy.  She's a chimpanzee.  Where's her mate?  How many kids did they have?  You can't even explain how sex came to be when there was only a female chimp.  Lol, just give up on science now.  You probably will do better in religion with evolution and atheism.

I had to lmao when you said let intelligent people do the work.  I just did with the paragraph above.  Just admit you are a loser with science and stick to evolution in the religion section.  Why don't you start a thread on it on dumbasses bought into evolution and came up with atheism lmao?


----------



## Colin norris

james bond said:


> You keep getting it backwards.  Evolution isn't science as scientific experiments nor observation backs it up.


Nothing to support it but evution itself and DNA,  fossils and carbon dating. Yep. Definately nothing to support it. 


james bond said:


> It's more a religion except the atheist scientists kept writing papers on it in order to get accreditation and continued funding.


You have no evidence of that but rely on your ignorant religious beliefs. 


james bond said:


> Those who think of themselves as atheists bought those papers.  It's just BS that kept on growing.  There are no facts with evolution.


The fact you are here is fact although with your ignorance regarding it, you will go by the wayside like the other dinosaurs. 


james bond said:


> You can't even provide one.  There isn't any history associated with evolution except for Judy.  She's a chimpanzee.  Where's her mate?  How many kids did they have?  You can't even explain how sex came to be when there was only a female chimp.  Lol, just give up on science now.  You probably will do better in religion with evolution and atheism.you are exhibiting in public


Stop bring childish.  You're so ficked  in the head you've lost all your curiosity for the truth. 



james bond said:


> I had to lmao when you said let intelligent people do the work.  I just did with the paragraph above.


The arrogance of your Jesus junkies to think your faith without evidence is a match for scientific discoveries. Are you mad? Do really think that is an intelligent statement? You've got an over inflated opinion of your intelligence. 



james bond said:


> Just admit you are a loser with science and stick to evolution in the religion section.  Why don't you start a thread on it on dumbasses bought into evolution and came up with atheism lmao?


Where is the religious part of evolution? You're becoming irrational and nearly incoherent. Have some valium you fool before you blow a gasket. 

There is no God and never has been. There isn't even a reason to have one.  It's all explained. The likes if you who fear death and expect an afterlife as a reward for being a fool, have absolutely nothing to base it on. Evolution is a fact and not one part of it is attached to religion or your filthy God. 
If you have evidence, produce it now or shut up. You Are a fraudulent charlatan and should be charged for peddling that shit you little kids.  what and brain dead despicable wicked human being you are. 
Laugh now dickhead.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> You keep getting it backwards.  Evolution isn't science as scientific experiments nor observation backs it up.  It's more a religion except the atheist scientists kept writing papers on it in order to get accreditation and continued funding.  Those who think of themselves as atheists bought those papers.  It's just BS that kept on growing.  There are no facts with evolution.  You can't even provide one.  There isn't any history associated with evolution except for Judy.  She's a chimpanzee.  Where's her mate?  How many kids did they have?  You can't even explain how sex came to be when there was only a female chimp.  Lol, just give up on science now.  You probably will do better in religion with evolution and atheism.
> 
> I had to lmao when you said let intelligent people do the work.  I just did with the paragraph above.  Just admit you are a loser with science and stick to evolution in the religion section.  Why don't you start a thread on it on dumbasses bought into evolution and came up with atheism lmao?


Archaeologists discover missing link in human evolution, in Israel.     Looks like they found the missing link in Israel.


----------



## abu afak

surada said:


> Archaeologists discover missing link in human evolution, in Israel.     Looks like they found the missing link in Israel.


there are many 'missing links,' and as evo would predict, we keep finding more of our relatives. Nearly all traces are gone now: didn't make it.
Not "design" obviously, but trial and error evo.

`


----------



## abu afak

Colin norris said:


> Again, he was investigating evolution and it is now a known fact. Religion has rejected it but of course They would.
> If anyone  choses to believe in some celestial dictatorship, that's fine but they are wrong.
> Btw.  That was well plagairised.
> Stick with your bible and let intelligent people do the leg work


Only LITTERalist religion.
Many/Most of the large sects o Christianity accept Evo now.
`


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> This is heavily BIASED science as evolution isn't settled science as macroevolution was disproved.  All it's based on is those papers that today's atheist scientists wrote to further their careers.
> 
> I was reading about magnetic levitation and found today's high speed trains can get us from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 45 mins.  It is about 383 mi. or 617 km by car which takes 5 hrs 30 mins.  That's prolly faster than by air taking into consideration airport/airline logistics.  It is about 383 mi. or 617 km by car which takes 5 hrs 30 mins.


Not all members of religions are LITTERalists like you.






`


----------



## francoHFW

AFrench2 said:


> Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.


of course. somebody say different lol?


----------



## james bond

Colin norris said:


> Nothing to support it but evution itself and DNA,  fossils and carbon dating. Yep. Definately nothing to support it.
> 
> You have no evidence of that but rely on your ignorant religious beliefs.
> 
> The fact you are here is fact although with your ignorance regarding it, you will go by the wayside like the other dinosaurs.
> 
> Stop bring childish.  You're so ficked  in the head you've lost all your curiosity for the truth.
> 
> 
> The arrogance of your Jesus junkies to think your faith without evidence is a match for scientific discoveries. Are you mad? Do really think that is an intelligent statement? You've got an over inflated opinion of your intelligence.
> 
> 
> Where is the religious part of evolution? You're becoming irrational and nearly incoherent. Have some valium you fool before you blow a gasket.
> 
> There is no God and never has been. There isn't even a reason to have one.  It's all explained. The likes if you who fear death and expect an afterlife as a reward for being a fool, have absolutely nothing to base it on. Evolution is a fact and not one part of it is attached to religion or your filthy God.
> If you have evidence, produce it now or shut up. You Are a fraudulent charlatan and should be charged for peddling that shit you little kids.  what and brain dead despicable wicked human being you are.
> Laugh now dickhead.


Religion is religion.  For creationists, DNA, fossils, carbon dating and more are the creation science that demonstrates science backs up the Bible while I think you admitted there is no science that backs up evolution.  Otherwise, please explain how DNA, fossils and carbon dating has anything to do with evolution?

The rest, as usual, is your SAF opinion and faith in atheism.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Not all members of religions are LITTERalists like you.
> 
> View attachment 604269
> 
> `


You don't understand that graph.  The majority believes in God and not atheism.  The gold backs religion and is against evolution.  The grey is theistic evolution.  The blue could be pantheism.  Otherwise, why don't you explain the graph you posted from the atheist view lol?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Religion is religion.  For creationists, DNA, fossils, carbon dating and more are the creation science that demonstrates science backs up the Bible while I think you admitted there is no science that backs up evolution.  Otherwise, please explain how DNA, fossils and carbon dating has anything to do with evolution?
> 
> The rest, as usual, is your SAF opinion and faith in atheism.


Fossils represent a very old earth. Tell us about the specific dinosaurs that strolled off the Ark a mere few thousand years ago. Does science back up talking snakes? Does science back up a flat earth?


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Archaeologists discover missing link in human evolution, in Israel.     Looks like they found the missing link in Israel.


Are you SURE?  Are you POSITIVE like me?  You're betting ETERNITY on it.  I'd love to SEE YOU BURN, but I won't be able to WATCH so just have to settle for DESTROYING evolution.  I got footprints of humans and dinosaurs and artwork of humans and dinosaurs.  Just need the fossils.

Anyway, _the missing link_ isn't real science is it?

If there were ape-humans, then there would have to have been a large population resulting in several fossils.  Are you saying this wasn't the case?  If so, then please explain.

If one the evos here bought the article for us to read, then it would mean they were more serious about it.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Are you SURE?  Are you POSITIVE like me?  You're betting ETERNITY on it.  I'd love to SEE YOU BURN, but I won't be able to WATCH so just have to settle for DESTROYING evolution.  I got footprints of humans and dinosaurs and artwork of humans and dinosaurs.  Just need the fossils.
> 
> Anyway, _the missing link_ isn't real science is it?
> 
> If there were ape-humans, then there would have to have been a large population resulting in several fossils.  Are you saying this wasn't the case?  If so, then please explain.
> 
> If one the evos here bought the article for us to read, then it would mean they were more serious about it.


"_I'd love to SEE YOU BURN_,"

Ah, yes. The universally sustaining benediction of the angry,  hyper-religous; "you'll get yours my pretty... and your little dog, too."


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> "_I'd love to SEE YOU BURN_,"
> 
> Ah, yes. The universally sustaining benediction of the angry,  hyper-religous; "you'll get yours my pretty... and your little dog, too."


I doubt surada is pret...  No, I'm satisfied.  Have continued to win in science over the evos.  It's interesting how things have turned out when I'm accused of being "the angry, hyper-religous."  I can see that being an evo and none of their arguments have turned out.  It could be that the evos just end up with papers, news articles and books on their _lovely_ subject.  No experiment, evidence or science to back it up.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I doubt surada is pret...  No, I'm satisfied.  Have continued to win in science over the evos.  It's interesting how things have turned out when I'm accused of being "the angry, hyper-religous."  I can see that being an evo and none of their arguments have turned out.  It could be that the evos just end up with papers, news articles and books on their _lovely_ subject.  No experiment, evidence or science to back it up.


Reads like a desperate plea for attention.


----------



## surada

T





james bond said:


> I doubt surada is pret...  No, I'm satisfied.  Have continued to win in science over the evos.  It's interesting how things have turned out when I'm accused of being "the angry, hyper-religous."  I can see that being an evo and none of their arguments have turned out.  It could be that the evos just end up with papers, news articles and books on their _lovely_ subject.  No experiment, evidence or science to back it up.


They excavated a 30,000 year old prehistoric cemetery in Egypt last year. Your favorite science magazine has written about it.


----------



## Dagosa

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Dan Kahan, a science communication expert at Yale Law School, thinks that's possible, but only if we abandon some tired rhetorical terrain. Asking people whether or not they “believe” in evolution is the wrong question, Kahan's work suggests, because it forces them to decide between what they know and who they are.’ _ibid_
> 
> True.
> 
> And of course evolution isn’t a ‘belief’ – it’s a fact; religion is a belief.


Evolution is a theory. It’s an explanation based upon experimentation and evidence. Giving it a simple name like a fact, opens evolution up to way too many criticisms by naysayers.


----------



## gtopa1

fncceo said:


> If a river splits in two ... the branches go off in different directions, one doesn't just cease to be.  The same is true of offspring.  When a mutation occurs, creating a new line, it doesn't affect the existing, non-mutated lines.
> 
> As for the Neanderthals, fossil evidence shows that modern humans not only co-existed with them, but mated with them.  Neanderthal DNA accounts for up to 20% of the genome of non-African humans.
> 
> The most plausible answer to where they went is, we killed them off.


.....or "intercoursed" them to oblivion!!!

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

surada said:


> Archaeologists discover missing link in human evolution, in Israel.     Looks like they found the missing link in Israel.


"May" is not certain. But I will look.

Greg


----------



## Turtlesoup

fncceo said:


> How about you just don't?
> 
> The facts of science don't change if someone doesn't believe in them.
> 
> There really is no point in trying to educate the mind of someone who isn't seeking to learn the truth.


This is true---all you do by trying to change a believer (especially the more primitive evangelicals) mind about religion is to make them defensive and apprehensive.   Besides, many if not most people need something to believe in socially ----they often don't like to individually think for themselves.   They need the confirmation of group think to feel validated and secure in their thought process.

You can however, keep building in evolution into society's group think slowly a little bit by a little bit.   Don't target the non believer---- eventually when everyone else picks up on a little aspect of the science behind it, it will apply social pressure to the most ardent believers to grow to accept a little more of it as well.

Time is not on the believers side if we continue to progress---and don't go back to the stone age following WW3 that we are working so hard for now.


----------



## fncceo

CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did!



Actually,  we've know since the '50s, using experiments that have been replicated dozens of times,  that under conditions similar to those of pre-autotrophic Earth, carbon based molecules will spontaneously combines into long chain molecules that are amino acids

These experiments take mere days to produce organic molecules... imagine what nature would do with those molecules after billions of years.


----------



## Dagosa

Turtlesoup said:


> You can however, keep building in evolution into society's group think slowly a little bit by a little bit. Don't target the non believer---- eventually when everyone else picks up on a little aspect of the science behind it, it will apply social pressure to the most ardent believers to grow to accept a little more of it as well.


It‘s hard to imagine turning the deniers when there is no support for their deranged position anywhere in the real world Now. They live in Oz. Oz lives on too. There will always be a segment of the population that’s delusional.


----------



## Dagosa

fncceo said:


> Actually,  we've know since the '50s, using experiments that have been replicated dozens of times,  that under conditions similar to those of pre-autotrophic Earth, carbon based molecules will spontaneously combines into long chain molecules that are amino acids
> 
> These experiments take mere days to produce organic molecules... imagine what nature would do with those molecules after billions of years.


That gives rise to the question, “ why is there life only here on earth ?” when all of that part of the universe that we have access  appears to be carbon based. Life seems to happen not by chance, but by mandate.


----------



## fncceo

Dagosa said:


> “ why is there life only here on earth



We only have taken a look at seven other planets, other than our own, and we taken that close of a look.

There could still be microbial life on Mars.  A possibility exists for life in the upper cloud layers of Jupiter or perhaps in the ice covered oceans of Europa.

It's a awfully big Universe and it's way too early for anyone to say that life only exists on Earth.


----------



## Dagosa

fncceo said:


> We only have taken a look at seven other planets, other than our own, and we taken that close of a look.
> 
> There could still be microbial life on Mars.  A possibility exists for life in the upper cloud layers of Jupiter or perhaps in the ice covered oceans of Europa.
> 
> It's a awfully big Universe and it's way too early for anyone to say that life only exists on Earth.


Yup….it’s way too early because we are still at our infancy in dealing with space, time and distance. The idea of space exploration is a dream and better left to the imagination of movies for now. All the information we can gather is that which is decades to thousands of years old. We’re just little more then 100 years since we learned to fly. We’re  still burning fossil fuels like we did at the dawn of man. We are really quite backwards….Apple Inc. toys  aside.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

How to talk to evangelicas about evolution:

You don't. You give them and F on the 7th grade science quiz and say, "See you back in this class next year, better luck next time".

Otherwise, nothing else to say.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Dagosa said:


> It‘s hard to imagine turning the deniers when there is no support for their deranged position anywhere in the real world Now. They live in Oz. Oz lives on too. There will always be a segment of the population that’s delusional.


There are people who need to be told what to think----and they can not break what they were taught as kids and saw most people do and be.   On a primitive level, humans are a social animal that follows a herd.  This changes when the herd thought process changes.


----------



## Dagosa

Turtlesoup said:


> There are people who need to be told what to think----and they can not break what they were taught as kids and saw most people do and be.   On a primitive level, humans are a social animal that follows a herd.  This changes when the herd thought process changes.


So, you must be in management where you don’t have to do what ever anyone says at work.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> As I said, your atheist science is a religion science and is wrong.  Otherwise, you'd have evidence for no God/gods.  It's creationists who have evidence for God.  However, the atheists won't accept the proof even if it is foolproof.  They are that foolish.  So, the only proof for you, the atheists and the sinners will come in your deaths.  It comes in the evidence of pain and more pain after Judgement Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the Christian ones who believe in atheist science, I don't know what happens to them.  Personally, I don't think you can take both sides.


Keep it up. You'll drive children away from faith.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> *No, they're based on Science which is not religious just truth seeking.
> If it makes you happier we could have them be literalist/Radical Hindus or Muslims...
> Your sort.
> So you make a big Mistake, many people of science are culturally Christian just not Raving Lunatic Literalist Like you, you Freak.
> 
> No/none/ZERO respectable persons in science are Genesis litter-alists like you.*
> 
> 
> 
> Libtard is a word/insult with no meaning.
> I just don't get my science from a bunch of primitive morons written 2000 years ago and take it literally.
> 
> You Clown.
> You're the Christian Taliban.
> Now stop hogging the keyboard and give the other patients a turn.
> 
> 
> `


Let's not get carried away with ad hominems.  I think you're getting ALL EMO because I have experimental evidence that backs up the Bible.

What evidence you present is just paper (which I mentioned already many times as articles and papers atheist scientists/evolution scientists wrote to get funding).  Do you have any experiments or documentation of research findings?

Without the experiments or documentation of research findings, then you have nothing but opinion.

I pointed out the difference between natural selection by evolution, i.e. doesn't happen, versus natural selection by creation.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Keep it up. You'll drive children away from faith.


I think I've cut the WARNINGS down.  It's okay with me if you do not believe it, but creation science is NOT RELIGION.  It's science.


----------



## james bond

fncceo said:


> There could still be microbial life on Mars. A possibility exists for life in the upper cloud layers of Jupiter or perhaps in the ice covered oceans of Europa.


I don't think there would be if they are exposed to solar winds.  That's like trying to live in either or outer space.  That is too harsh for any form of life.  We have microbes in the extreme heat and cold and high and low of Earth, but we have a magnetic field to protect us from the solar winds.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> I think I've cut the WARNINGS down.  It's okay with me if you do not believe it, but creation science is NOT RELIGION.  It's science.


Nope. Creation science is not science and no one should teach it as such. Be honest. Teach the supernatural.


----------



## Dagosa

Turtlesoup said:


> There are people who need to be told what to think----and they can not break what they were taught as kids and saw most people do and be.   On a primitive level, humans are a social animal that follows a herd.  This changes when the herd thought process changes.


The good thing is, there are many  children regardless of how they were raised to disregard facts, can still be educated. We see it all the time when kids are exposed to the real world.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> I think I've cut the WARNINGS down.  It's okay with me if you do not believe it, but creation science is NOT RELIGION.  It's science.


That’s hilarious. You think you can put two words together and adopt a composite of the two. A benevolent Hitler or honest Trump doesn’t work either. Science and creationism don’t go together. They aren’t even in the same ball park. Science is a methodology. Creation is something people believe in who don’t use the scientific method. Of course, you don’t use the scientific method. You need to get the vast majority of the scientific community that uses the scientific method  to agree on creationism long before you can claim it’s a science. They don’t.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Nope. Creation science is not science and no one should teach it as such. Be honest. Teach the supernatural.


The supernatural of the Christian God is _a big part of life_ as we have the days of creation, the Bible and how science backs it up.  You don't understand real science and evidence if you believe evolution.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> The supernatural of the Christian God is _a big part of life_ as we have the days of creation, the Bible and how science backs it up.  You don't understand real science and evidence if you believe evolution.


You don't understand reality if you believe in the supernatural.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I think I've cut the WARNINGS down.  It's okay with me if you do not believe it, but creation science is NOT RELIGION.  It's science.


ID'iot creationerism is a laughable joke. It's religious extremism under a burqa of falsehoods.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> You don't understand reality if you believe in the supernatural.


God is part of OUR reality as science backs up the Bible.  The greatest scientists in the history of humankind believed in God.  I think I've proved science doesn't back up evolution.  That's the REALITY.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> God is part of OUR reality as science backs up the Bible.  The greatest scientists in the history of humankind believed in God.  I think I've proved science doesn't back up evolution.  That's the REALITY.


Your gods are not a part of any reality. Science does not "back up" the bibles. You have not proven anything about science.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Your gods are not a part of any reality. Science does not "back up" the bibles. You have not proven anything about science.


Eres un peredor.  I'm even learning some Spanish here lol.

I know you atheists do not get science.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> The supernatural of the Christian God is _a big part of life_ as we have the days of creation, the Bible and how science backs it up.  You don't understand real science and evidence if you believe evolution.


Still on that same tripe ? Science has no skin in the game you call the Bible. You’ve proven over and over you know nothing about science. Evolution is a main stay of biology and other sciences. You never had a science class ?


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Eres un peredor.  I'm even learning some Spanish here lol.
> 
> I know you atheists do not get science.


By atheists you’re including the majority of the official position of Christians right ?


----------



## Dagosa

Hollie said:


> Your gods are not a part of any reality. Science does not "back up" the bibles. You have not proven anything about science.


His gods are in his own mind. He doesn’t  even know that the vast majority of Christian’s sects officially believe in evolution.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> The supernatural of the Christian God is _a big part of life_ as we have the days of creation, the Bible and how science backs it up.  You don't understand real science and evidence if you believe evolution.



Babble.


----------



## Grumblenuts

abu afak said:


> If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: *Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.*


Interesting parallel to Einstein's crime of providing a wacko explanation for "light travel" -- and, more problematically, light energy transfer -- that required no medium. The difference being Darwin advanced his field of study by at least a century while Einstein dragged his backwards roughly the same.


----------



## Cecilie1200

abu afak said:


> Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
> Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.
> 
> *HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION*
> Smithsonian Magazine -- 4-19-2018
> 
> *""Rick Potts is no atheist-evolutionist-Darwinist.* That often comes as a surprise to the faith communities he works with as head of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Human Origins Program in Washington, D.C.
> 
> Raised Protestant — with, he likes to say, “an emphasis on the ‘protest’” — the paleoanthropologist spends his weekends singing in a choir that sings both sacred and secular songs. At 18, he became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War...
> [....]That’s why, for him, human evolution is the perfect topic to break down entrenched barriers between people in an increasingly polarized, politicized world.
> [.....]
> If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: *Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.*
> 
> What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, *among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?*
> [.....]
> [.....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution
> 
> 
> For two years, researchers from the Smithsonian traveled the country explaining the science of our shared origins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com



Quick question:  What makes you think it's your business to "talk to" evangelicals about anything?  Why do you care so much what other people believe?


----------



## Cecilie1200

CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!
> 
> Science = settled!
> 
> Can I get an Amen?
> 
> We have Concensus!



I hate to break it to the fanatically evangelical atheists, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.


----------



## BackAgain

Cecilie1200 said:


> Quick question:  What makes you think it's your business to "talk to" evangelicals about anything?  Why do you care so much what other people believe?


It offends his religious sensibilities. He can’t even grasp that his version of atheism is a religious belief. He is a zealot.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> How to talk to evangelicas about evolution:
> 
> You don't. You give them and F on the 7th grade science quiz and say, "See you back in this class next year, better luck next time".
> 
> Otherwise, nothing else to say.



"I just assume that I'm so much smarter than everyone else, and don't engage in discussions where I might find out that I'm conceited over something that doesn't exist."


----------



## Cecilie1200

BackAgain said:


> It offends his religious sensibilities. He can’t even grasp that his version of atheism is a religious belief. He is a zealot.



I was going with, "Hating religion makes me feel smart when nothing else on Earth can manage it.  I must preach about how I finally don't hate being me".  As near as I can tell, that's all he has.


----------



## abu afak

Cecilie1200 said:


> Quick question:  What makes you think it's your business to "talk to" evangelicals about anything?  Why do you care so much what other people believe?


It was clearly Smithsonian Magazine's idea. They hired a Non-Atheist to do so.
Highly esteemed Mag it is too.
Worth a read.
*"what other people believe," be it religion or politics IS What we talk about on Political message boards.
we have sections on Science, Religion, and Politics to discuss those ideas/opinions. Hark!*
I hope that answers your idiotic and now failed 'question.'

`


----------



## Cecilie1200

abu afak said:


> IT was clearly Smithsonian Magazine's idea.
> Highly esteemed Mag it is too.
> Worth a read.
> *"what other people believe," be it religion or politics IS WHAT we talk about on Political message boards.
> we have sections on Science, Religion, and Politics to discuss those ideas/opinions. Hark!*
> I hope that answers your idiotic question.
> 
> `



Oh, so Smithsonian Magazine forced you to come to this message board and start a thread about how "brilliantly" you were going to "destroy" evangelical Christians by explaining something they 1) already know about, and 2) don't care about in regards to their religious beliefs, because it doesn't affect them in the slightest?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were being ruthlessly held hostage by Smithsonian and forced against your will to gloat and crow over your many imagined debate triumphs.  Do let us know if you need us to send someone to rescue you from your captivity.

In other words, you didn't answer shit, AND the only one idiotic here remains you.

Did you want to try for a better response than running and hiding and blaming someone else?  Maybe you could start by having a thought of your own, rather than just cutting-and-pasting other people's thoughts and claiming to be "smarter than" on the strength of those you follow.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Cecilie1200 said:


> Quick question:  What makes you think it's your business to "talk to" evangelicals about anything?  Why do you care so much what other people believe?



Oh, noes!  I have been brutally down-thumbed by Abu.  I guess that's me thoroughly and rigorously rebutted.  Nothing makes a more incisive argument than, "Dislike button, so THERE!"


----------



## abu afak

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, so Smithsonian Magazine forced you to come to this message board and start a thread about how "brilliantly" you were going to "destroy" evangelical Christians by explaining something they 1) already know about, and 2) don't care about in regards to their religious beliefs, because it doesn't affect them in the slightest?
> 
> I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were being ruthlessly held hostage by Smithsonian and forced against your will to gloat and crow over your many imagined debate triumphs.  Do let us know if you need us to send someone to rescue you from your captivity.
> 
> In other words, you didn't answer shit, AND the only one idiotic here remains you.
> 
> Did you want to try for a better response than running and hiding and blaming someone else?  Maybe you could start by having a thought of your own, rather than just cutting-and-pasting other people's thoughts and claiming to be "smarter than" on the strength of those you follow.


Another hostile empty post.
Clearly I have been posting/wrestling for years with the topic.
(many related thread starts)

*And I did say/show THAT is what this board is for, and has Specific sections for that and other topics.
You were now answered twice .. and Porked.*

Should you have any Topical material, be glad to straighten you out on that as well.

`


----------



## Cecilie1200

abu afak said:


> Another hostile empty post.
> Clearly I have been posting/wrestling for years with the topic.
> (many related thread starts)
> 
> *And I did say/show THAT is what this board is for, and has Specific sections for that and other topics.
> You were now answered twice .. and Porked.*
> 
> Should you have any Topical material, be glad to straighten you out on that as well.
> 
> `



Let me just drag you down out of your fantasies of towering, incisive brilliance yet again, because if I had the time and patience for delusional people, I'd be a psychiatrist for $500 an hour.

YOU came to this message board, uninvited and decidedly undesired, and started a thread with these words:

_"Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently."_

Then you proceeded with a long, boring, driveling cut-and-paste that amounted to nothing more than, "Look at this person I've decided to admire.  Agreeing with him will make me feel so smart and superior."

When I asked, quite reasonably (from the point of view of someone who can have her own thoughts, anyway) what made you think you needed to tell anyone anything, you immediately backpedaled and denied all responsibility for any of the views expressed in YOUR OP, deflecting off onto "THEY said it, not me".  This despite the fact that the first words in this thread, as I've pointed out, were YOURS, clearly claiming identification with the diatribe you parroted at us.

Then, when I pointed this out, you come back with, "Another empty post."  Well, if that's so, perhaps it's because your posts to which I'm responding are so empty themselves.

NOW you seem to think you get to demand that I shoulder the burden of providing arguments and evidence, while you just sit back and snipe at them and tell me how stoooopid I am for not "knowing the truth", otherwise known as "agreeing with your masters".

Sorry, Chuckles.  YOU started the thread; YOU presented the claims.  YOU get to substantiate and defend and answer questions, not the other way around.

And you can save yourself the trouble of your "devastating" downvotes.  Yet another thing that's different in the real world from your fantasies is that no one actually cares about your disapproval of them.  Definitely not someone to whom you've made such an unimpressive and cowardly show so far.

I'll ask you again, and this time I'll even be nice enough to explain the words for you:  Since you've gone to all this trouble to start a thread on, "How to talk to people I've decided are stupid about the thing I've decided makes me smart, lol lol I'm sure they'd be devastated if I ever got the stones to actually talk to one", perhaps you could tell us WHY you think you need to talk to anyone about anything, or even why you think they would care what you have to say at all.

You're going to have to do better than this if you hope to ever "break it to them gently" in anything but your daydreams of rhetorical victories.


----------



## abu afak

Cecilie1200 said:


> Let me just drag you down out of your fantasies of towering, incisive brilliance yet again, because if I had the time and patience for delusional people, I'd be a psychiatrist for $500 an hour.
> 
> *YOU came to this message board, uninvited and decidedly undesired, and started a thread with these words:*
> 
> _"Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
> Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently."_
> 
> Then you proceeded with a long, boring, driveling cut-and-paste that amounted to nothing more than, "Look at this person I've decided to admire.  Agreeing with him will make me feel so smart and superior."


1. This is an open message board.
Everyone comes "uninvited."
You fallacious @sshole.
2. I edited the article down to it's gist for this audience.
3. since you know shit about this section and it's interactions, let me tell you the most important thing about the article. It's talking from the perspective of a person of faith, not an "Atheist."
3a. You see, anyone here talking science/evo (and most of us are atheists/agnostics), is accused/discounted of being as an "atheist scientist," "a religion" they claim.
But as it turns out/the article points out, you can be a religionist and believe in Evolution. The anti-Evos here are mostly Biblical Literalists (Evangelicals) and ergo YEC/Young Earth Creationists.
That was the perspective, who I was talking to. Dead on the issue at hand.





Cecilie1200 said:


> When I asked, quite reasonably (from the point of view of someone who can have her own thoughts, anyway) what made you think you needed to tell anyone anything, you immediately backpedaled and denied all responsibility for any of the views expressed in YOUR OP, deflecting off onto "THEY said it, not me".  This despite the fact that the first words in this thread, as I've pointed out, were YOURS, clearly claiming identification with the diatribe you parroted at us.


We/No one posts what we don't agree with unless one says so immediately/outright.
I bolded 3 short passages what I felt were the most important parts.
Obviously.




Cecilie1200 said:


> Then, when I pointed this out, you come back with, "Another empty post."  Well, if that's so, perhaps it's because your posts to which I'm responding are so empty themselves.
> 
> NOW you seem to think you get to demand that I shoulder the burden of providing arguments and evidence, while you just sit back and snipe at them and tell me how stoooopid I am for not "knowing the truth", otherwise known as "agreeing with your masters".
> 
> Sorry, Chuckles.  YOU started the thread; YOU presented the claims.  YOU get to substantiate and defend and answer questions, not the other way around.
> 
> And you can save yourself the trouble of your "devastating" downvotes.  Yet another thing that's different in the real world from your fantasies is that no one actually cares about your disapproval of them.  Definitely not someone to whom you've made such an unimpressive and cowardly show so far.
> 
> I'll ask you again, and this time I'll even be nice enough to explain the words for you:  Since you've gone to all this trouble to start a thread on, "How to talk to people I've decided are stupid about the thing I've decided makes me smart, lol lol I'm sure they'd be devastated if I ever got the stones to actually talk to one", perhaps you could tell us WHY you think you need to talk to anyone about anything, or even why you think they would care what you have to say at all.
> 
> You're going to have to do better than this if you hope to ever "break it to them gently" in anything but your daydreams of rhetorical victories.


"""..perhaps you could tell us WHY you think you need to talk to anyone about anything, or even why you think they would care what you have to say at all..."

Again vacuous/non sequitur guy..
This IS an Open Political Message board.
EVERYONE comes to give/blurt out their opinions.
Using Smithsonian for this particular OP, is just a much higher quality starter than most and again, directly addressing the opposition audience.

I use the best sources both here and in 'Environment.' (other Science section).
Those two are where I post.
*What are YOU doing here BTW? 54,000 posts, where ya been BOY?*
You thought this section was just like politics/80% one-line trolls?
Wrong BOY. There's some smart people here and in Env. Not you.

You fancy yourself quite the wordsmith do you?
Well you aren't.
Your posts are 90% Fallacies and strawmen, and you're not close to finessing or debating me.. BOY.
Back to Mensa for me, back to trolling the lesser trolls on USMB for you.

`


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Cecilie1200 said:


> I hate to break it to the fanatically evangelical atheists, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.


They think that the very idea of "me" is supposed to be...what, chemistry? A slightly different ratio of carbon?

Insanity!


----------



## Cecilie1200

CrusaderFrank said:


> They think that the very idea of "me" is supposed to be...what, chemistry? A slightly different ratio of carbon?
> 
> Insanity!



I am reading a book that is actually called "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist", because frankly, this is what I'm left thinking every single time I listen to an atheist trying to make a logical argument (and it's pretty rare that they even do try).

1)  The scientific evidence confirms that the universe exploded into being out of nothing.  You'd be hard-pressed to find a major, respected scientist who doesn't accept the Big Bang Theory.  Either someone or something created something out of nothing (the Christian view), or no one and nothing created something out of nothing (the atheistic view).  Which one requires more faith?  The atheistic view.

2)  The genetic structure of even the simplest life form on Earth contains a complex code equivalent to 1,000 encyclopedias worth of information.  Christians believe that coded information that complex requires an intelligent being to code it.  Atheists believe that non-intelligent natural forces can create it randomly.  Which one requires more faith?  The atheists.

3)  The birth, life, and death of a man claiming to be God were foretold in ancient writings hundreds of years before the birth of Christ.  His birthplace, bloodline, and time of death were all predicted.  Multiple eyewitnesses testified to these events happening, even though they had nothing whatsoever to gain by doing so.  In fact, many of them persecuted and killed in horrific ways for doing so, but not one of them ever recanted.  Ancient historians and writers allude to or confirm these events, and archaeology is increasingly corroborating them.  If this were a criminal investigation, we'd already be preparing indictments.  Atheists nevertheless just wave it all away, or more rarely try to produce the multiple theories that would all have to be true all at once to explain those things away.  And, most notably, they have no evidence for any of those theories, much less all of them.  Which viewpoint requires more faith?  The atheists.

Sorry, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  I am a Christian because I'm just too realistic and skeptical to close my eyes, stick my fingers in my ears, and proclaim a belief in the face of contradictory evidence.  I'll leave the pie-eyed, unicorn-fart fantasies and daydreams to the fanatical atheists.


----------



## surada

Cecilie1200 said:


> I am reading a book that is actually called "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist", because frankly, this is what I'm left thinking every single time I listen to an atheist trying to make a logical argument (and it's pretty rare that they even do try).
> 
> 1)  The scientific evidence confirms that the universe exploded into being out of nothing.  You'd be hard-pressed to find a major, respected scientist who doesn't accept the Big Bang Theory.  Either someone or something created something out of nothing (the Christian view), or no one and nothing created something out of nothing (the atheistic view).  Which one requires more faith?  The atheistic view.
> 
> 2)  The genetic structure of even the simplest life form on Earth contains a complex code equivalent to 1,000 encyclopedias worth of information.  Christians believe that coded information that complex requires an intelligent being to code it.  Atheists believe that non-intelligent natural forces can create it randomly.  Which one requires more faith?  The atheists.
> 
> 3)  The birth, life, and death of a man claiming to be God were foretold in ancient writings hundreds of years before the birth of Christ.  His birthplace, bloodline, and time of death were all predicted.  Multiple eyewitnesses testified to these events happening, even though they had nothing whatsoever to gain by doing so.  In fact, many of them persecuted and killed in horrific ways for doing so, but not one of them ever recanted.  Ancient historians and writers allude to or confirm these events, and archaeology is increasingly corroborating them.  If this were a criminal investigation, we'd already be preparing indictments.  Atheists nevertheless just wave it all away, or more rarely try to produce the multiple theories that would all have to be true all at once to explain those things away.  And, most notably, they have no evidence for any of those theories, much less all of them.  Which viewpoint requires more faith?  The atheists.
> 
> Sorry, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  I am a Christian because I'm just too realistic and skeptical to close my eyes, stick my fingers in my ears, and proclaim a belief in the face of contradictory evidence.  I'll leave the pie-eyed, unicorn-fart fantasies and daydreams to the fanatical atheists.


There is NOTHING about Jesus in the old testament.


----------



## Dagosa

Cecilie1200 said:


> The scientific evidence confirms that the universe exploded into being out of nothing.


You immediately started out with made up shit. Everything after that is just babble.  At least get the initial statement correct.
Energy and sub atomic particles are not “ nothing”.


----------



## Cecilie1200

surada said:


> There is NOTHING about Jesus in the old testament.



Unsurprisingly, you are incorrect, Oh Great-Scholar-Of-Things-You-Dismiss-As-Silly.

Isaiah chapter 7, verses 13-14:

(For context, in this chapter, two armies were marching on Jerusalem to try to conquer it.  Obviously, the people of Jerusalem were terrified.  God sent His prophet, Isaiah, to meet with Ahaz, the king of Judah, and tell him to be calm and to ask for a sign from God.  Ahaz refuses, saying, "I will not test the Lord".  Isaiah gets impatient with him, and this is his response.)

*13*Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God as well? *14*Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgine will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel.

Isaiah chapter 53, verses 1-8:

*1*Who has believed our message?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
*2*He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no stately form or majesty to attract us,
no beauty that we should desire Him.
*3*He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief.
Like one from whom men hide their faces,
He was despised, and we esteemed Him not.
*4*Surely He took on our infirmities
and carried our sorrows;
yet we considered Him stricken by God,
struck down and afflicted.
*5*But He was pierced for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him,
and by His stripes we are healed.
*6*We all like sheep have gone astray,
each one has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid upon Him
the iniquity of us all.
*7*He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet He did not open His mouth.
He was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so He did not open His mouth.
*8*By oppression and judgment He was taken away,
and who can recount His descendants?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
He was stricken for the transgression of My people.

The book of Isaiah was written over 700 years before the birth of Jesus.

Micah 5:2:

*2*But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come forth for Me
One to be ruler over Israel - One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity.

Micah was written 800 years before the birth of Jesus.

Psalm 22:

(I have selected the sections relevant to this discussion.)

*1*My God, my God,
why have You forsaken me?
Why are You so far from saving me,
so far from my words of groaning?
*2*I cry out by day, O my God,
but You do not answer,
and by night,
but I have no rest.

*7*All who see me mock me;
they sneer and shake their heads:
*8*“He trusts in the LORD,
let the LORD deliver him;
let the LORD rescue him,
since He delights in him.”

*16*For dogs surround me;
a band of evil men encircles me;
they have pierced my hands and feet.
*17*I can count all my bones;
they stare and gloat over me.
*18*They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

Psalms was written by King David 1000 years before Jesus' birth.  The accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke of His crucifixion state that all of these things happened.


----------



## Dagosa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unsurprisingly, you are incorrect, Oh Great-Scholar-Of-Things-You-Dismiss-As-Silly.
> 
> Isaiah chapter 7, verses 13-14:
> 
> (For context, in this chapter, two armies were marching on Jerusalem to try to conquer it.  Obviously, the people of Jerusalem were terrified.  God sent His prophet, Isaiah, to meet with Ahaz, the king of Judah, and tell him to be calm and to ask for a sign from God.  Ahaz refuses, saying, "I will not test the Lord".  Isaiah gets impatient with him, and this is his response.)
> 
> *13*Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God as well? *14*Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgine will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel.
> 
> Isaiah chapter 53, verses 1-8:
> 
> *1*Who has believed our message?
> And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
> *2*He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
> and like a root out of dry ground.
> He had no stately form or majesty to attract us,
> no beauty that we should desire Him.
> *3*He was despised and rejected by men,
> a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief.
> Like one from whom men hide their faces,
> He was despised, and we esteemed Him not.
> *4*Surely He took on our infirmities
> and carried our sorrows;
> yet we considered Him stricken by God,
> struck down and afflicted.
> *5*But He was pierced for our transgressions,
> He was crushed for our iniquities;
> the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him,
> and by His stripes we are healed.
> *6*We all like sheep have gone astray,
> each one has turned to his own way;
> and the LORD has laid upon Him
> the iniquity of us all.
> *7*He was oppressed and afflicted,
> yet He did not open His mouth.
> He was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
> and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
> so He did not open His mouth.
> *8*By oppression and judgment He was taken away,
> and who can recount His descendants?
> For He was cut off from the land of the living;
> He was stricken for the transgression of My people.
> 
> The book of Isaiah was written over 700 years before the birth of Jesus.
> 
> Micah 5:2:
> 
> *2*But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come forth for Me
> One to be ruler over Israel - One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity.
> 
> Micah was written 800 years before the birth of Jesus.
> 
> Psalm 22:
> 
> (I have selected the sections relevant to this discussion.)
> 
> *1*My God, my God,
> why have You forsaken me?
> Why are You so far from saving me,
> so far from my words of groaning?
> *2*I cry out by day, O my God,
> but You do not answer,
> and by night,
> but I have no rest.
> 
> *7*All who see me mock me;
> they sneer and shake their heads:
> *8*“He trusts in the LORD,
> let the LORD deliver him;
> let the LORD rescue him,
> since He delights in him.”
> 
> *16*For dogs surround me;
> a band of evil men encircles me;
> they have pierced my hands and feet.
> *17*I can count all my bones;
> they stare and gloat over me.
> *18*They divide my garments among them
> and cast lots for my clothing.
> 
> Psalms was written by King David 1000 years before Jesus' birth.  The accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke of His crucifixion state that all of these things happened.


Gee, and they’re still predicting the second coming….Trump. How many times do “ they” have to be wrong before they’re declared fake news ?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> They think that the very idea of "me" is supposed to be...what, chemistry? A slightly different ratio of carbon?
> 
> Insanity!


What else would it be? Do you think your brain is made up of lucky charms?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Cecilie1200 said:


> 2) don't care about in regards to their religious beliefs, because it doesn't affect them in the slightest?


Well there's where you are wrong. They get to reap the benefits of the science built on a foundation in part of evolutionary theory.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What else would it be? Do you think your brain is made up of lucky charms?



YOU apparently think exactly that, if you consider blind chance the only possible explanation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Cecilie1200 said:


> YOU apparently think exactly that, if you consider blind chance the only possible explanation.


Chance? Where do you get that? The physical laws of the universe aren't "chance". Selection isn't random, either. 

And what do I think, exactly? I asked a question. And you dodged it like a sissy. Why even come to this section to comment, if you can't handle the material being discussed?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well there's where you are wrong. They get to reap the benefits of the science built on a foundation in part of evolutionary theory.



I already knew you were functionally illiterate, but sometimes you still amaze me with your complete inability to read and understand words.

Here's the full quote that you deliberately mangled so that you could pretend to "answer" something it didn't say, but that you preferred to what it ACTUALLY said:

Oh, so Smithsonian Magazine forced you to come to this message board and start a thread about how "brilliantly" you were going to "destroy" evangelical Christians by *explaining something they 1) already know about, and 2) don't care about in regards to their religious beliefs, because it doesn't affect them in the slightest?*

It is obvious to anyone who is not Fart Fun and who can therefore comprehend the English language that the "they" I was speaking of was Christians, not the people you slavishly worship as your heroes because you mistakenly think that adoring them will somehow convey their intelligence to you by some sort of fanboy osmosis.

Christians are already well aware of evolutionary theory, contrary to the apparent belief of your spiritual boyfriend, Abu.  Christians also don't give a damn about evolutionary theory in regards to their religious beliefs, because evolution is irrelevant to Christianity, also contrary to the apparent belief of your boyfriend, Abu.

I find it heartwarming that you could find a soulmate of the same intellectual caliber as you on this message board, and I wish you and Abu many happy years of babbling mindlessly at each other and pinning clippings from Smithsonian to your walls together.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Chance? Where do you get that? The physical laws of the universe aren't "chance". Selection isn't random, either.
> 
> And what do I think, exactly? I asked a question. And you dodged it like a sissy. Why even come to this section to comment, if you can't handle the material being discussed?



I dodged exactly the same amount that you did, because I gave you the exact same answer you gave.  The difference is, I laughed at yours, and you got your panties in a wad at mine.


----------



## surada

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unsurprisingly, you are incorrect, Oh Great-Scholar-Of-Things-You-Dismiss-As-Silly.
> 
> Isaiah chapter 7, verses 13-14:
> 
> (For context, in this chapter, two armies were marching on Jerusalem to try to conquer it.  Obviously, the people of Jerusalem were terrified.  God sent His prophet, Isaiah, to meet with Ahaz, the king of Judah, and tell him to be calm and to ask for a sign from God.  Ahaz refuses, saying, "I will not test the Lord".  Isaiah gets impatient with him, and this is his response.)
> 
> *13*Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God as well? *14*Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgine will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel.
> 
> Isaiah chapter 53, verses 1-8:
> 
> *1*Who has believed our message?
> And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
> *2*He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
> and like a root out of dry ground.
> He had no stately form or majesty to attract us,
> no beauty that we should desire Him.
> *3*He was despised and rejected by men,
> a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief.
> Like one from whom men hide their faces,
> He was despised, and we esteemed Him not.
> *4*Surely He took on our infirmities
> and carried our sorrows;
> yet we considered Him stricken by God,
> struck down and afflicted.
> *5*But He was pierced for our transgressions,
> He was crushed for our iniquities;
> the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him,
> and by His stripes we are healed.
> *6*We all like sheep have gone astray,
> each one has turned to his own way;
> and the LORD has laid upon Him
> the iniquity of us all.
> *7*He was oppressed and afflicted,
> yet He did not open His mouth.
> He was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
> and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
> so He did not open His mouth.
> *8*By oppression and judgment He was taken away,
> and who can recount His descendants?
> For He was cut off from the land of the living;
> He was stricken for the transgression of My people.
> 
> The book of Isaiah was written over 700 years before the birth of Jesus.
> 
> Micah 5:2:
> 
> *2*But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come forth for Me
> One to be ruler over Israel - One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity.
> 
> Micah was written 800 years before the birth of Jesus.
> 
> Psalm 22:
> 
> (I have selected the sections relevant to this discussion.)
> 
> *1*My God, my God,
> why have You forsaken me?
> Why are You so far from saving me,
> so far from my words of groaning?
> *2*I cry out by day, O my God,
> but You do not answer,
> and by night,
> but I have no rest.
> 
> *7*All who see me mock me;
> they sneer and shake their heads:
> *8*“He trusts in the LORD,
> let the LORD deliver him;
> let the LORD rescue him,
> since He delights in him.”
> 
> *16*For dogs surround me;
> a band of evil men encircles me;
> they have pierced my hands and feet.
> *17*I can count all my bones;
> they stare and gloat over me.
> *18*They divide my garments among them
> and cast lots for my clothing.
> 
> Psalms was written by King David 1000 years before Jesus' birth.  The accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke of His crucifixion state that all of these things happened.


.      Isaiah is all about Israel who is called God's servant all thru the Old Testament.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Cecilie1200 said:


> I already knew you were functionally illiterate, but sometimes you still amaze me with your complete inability to read and understand words.
> 
> Here's the full quote that you deliberately mangled so that you could pretend to "answer" something it didn't say, but that you preferred to what it ACTUALLY said:
> 
> Oh, so Smithsonian Magazine forced you to come to this message board and start a thread about how "brilliantly" you were going to "destroy" evangelical Christians by *explaining something they 1) already know about, and 2) don't care about in regards to their religious beliefs, because it doesn't affect them in the slightest?*
> 
> It is obvious to anyone who is not Fart Fun and who can therefore comprehend the English language that the "they" I was speaking of was Christians, not the people you slavishly worship as your heroes because you mistakenly think that adoring them will somehow convey their intelligence to you by some sort of fanboy osmosis.
> 
> Christians are already well aware of evolutionary theory, contrary to the apparent belief of your spiritual boyfriend, Abu.  Christians also don't give a damn about evolutionary theory in regards to their religious beliefs, because evolution is irrelevant to Christianity, also contrary to the apparent belief of your boyfriend, Abu.
> 
> I find it heartwarming that you could find a soulmate of the same intellectual caliber as you on this message board, and I wish you and Abu many happy years of babbling mindlessly at each other and pinning clippings from Smithsonian to your walls together.


I didn't respond to that, ya moron. Pay attention!

You have now dodged tw questions, ya sissy. Why are you like this? Let's try again:

If our brains and even personalities are not just based in and the result of chemicals...then, what else?

Redirect some of that prancing peacock energy to that lump between your ears and give it a go.


----------



## surada

Cecilie1200 said:


> Unsurprisingly, you are incorrect, Oh Great-Scholar-Of-Things-You-Dismiss-As-Silly.
> 
> Isaiah chapter 7, verses 13-14:
> 
> (For context, in this chapter, two armies were marching on Jerusalem to try to conquer it.  Obviously, the people of Jerusalem were terrified.  God sent His prophet, Isaiah, to meet with Ahaz, the king of Judah, and tell him to be calm and to ask for a sign from God.  Ahaz refuses, saying, "I will not test the Lord".  Isaiah gets impatient with him, and this is his response.)
> 
> *13*Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God as well? *14*Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgine will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel.
> 
> Isaiah chapter 53, verses 1-8:
> 
> *1*Who has believed our message?
> And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
> *2*He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
> and like a root out of dry ground.
> He had no stately form or majesty to attract us,
> no beauty that we should desire Him.
> *3*He was despised and rejected by men,
> a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief.
> Like one from whom men hide their faces,
> He was despised, and we esteemed Him not.
> *4*Surely He took on our infirmities
> and carried our sorrows;
> yet we considered Him stricken by God,
> struck down and afflicted.
> *5*But He was pierced for our transgressions,
> He was crushed for our iniquities;
> the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him,
> and by His stripes we are healed.
> *6*We all like sheep have gone astray,
> each one has turned to his own way;
> and the LORD has laid upon Him
> the iniquity of us all.
> *7*He was oppressed and afflicted,
> yet He did not open His mouth.
> He was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
> and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
> so He did not open His mouth.
> *8*By oppression and judgment He was taken away,
> and who can recount His descendants?
> For He was cut off from the land of the living;
> He was stricken for the transgression of My people.
> 
> The book of Isaiah was written over 700 years before the birth of Jesus.
> 
> Micah 5:2:
> 
> *2*But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come forth for Me
> One to be ruler over Israel - One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity.
> 
> Micah was written 800 years before the birth of Jesus.
> 
> Psalm 22:
> 
> (I have selected the sections relevant to this discussion.)
> 
> *1*My God, my God,
> why have You forsaken me?
> Why are You so far from saving me,
> so far from my words of groaning?
> *2*I cry out by day, O my God,
> but You do not answer,
> and by night,
> but I have no rest.
> 
> *7*All who see me mock me;
> they sneer and shake their heads:
> *8*“He trusts in the LORD,
> let the LORD deliver him;
> let the LORD rescue him,
> since He delights in him.”
> 
> *16*For dogs surround me;
> a band of evil men encircles me;
> they have pierced my hands and feet.
> *17*I can count all my bones;
> they stare and gloat over me.
> *18*They divide my garments among them
> and cast lots for my clothing.
> 
> Psalms was written by King David 1000 years before Jesus' birth.  The accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke of His crucifixion state that all of these things happened.


Most of Psalms came from Ras Shamra and the Ugarit tablets a thousand years before King David.


----------



## Cecilie1200

abu afak said:


> 1. This is an open message board.
> Everyone comes "uninvited."
> You fallacious @sshole.
> 2. I edited the article down to it's gist for this audience.
> 3. since you know shit about this section and it's interactions, let me tell you the most important thing about the article. It's talking from the perspective of a person of faith, not an "Atheist."
> 3a. You see, anyone here talking science/evo (and most of us are atheists/agnostics), is accused/discounted of being as an "atheist scientist," "a religion" they claim.
> But as it turns out/the article points out, you can be a religionist and believe in Evolution. The anti-Evos here are mostly Biblical Literalists (Evangelicals) and ergo YEC/Young Earth Creationists.
> That was the perspective, who I was talking to. Dead on the issue at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We/No one posts what we don't agree with unless one says so immediately/outright.
> I bolded 3 short passages what I felt were the most important parts.
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> """..perhaps you could tell us WHY you think you need to talk to anyone about anything, or even why you think they would care what you have to say at all..."
> 
> Again vacuous/non sequitur guy..
> This IS an Open Political Message board.
> EVERYONE comes to give/blurt out their opinions.
> Using Smithsonian for this particular OP, is just a much higher quality starter than most and again, directly addressing the opposition audience.
> 
> I use the best sources both here and in 'Environment.' (other Science section).
> Those two are where I post.
> *What are YOU doing here BTW? 54,000 posts, where ya been BOY?*
> You thought this section was just like politics/80% one-line trolls?
> Wrong BOY. There's some smart people here and in Env. Not you.
> 
> You fancy yourself quite the wordsmith do you?
> Well you aren't.
> Your posts are 90% Fallacies and strawmen, and you're not close to finessing or debating me.. BOY.
> Back to Mensa for me, back to trolling the lesser trolls on USMB for you.
> 
> `





"You're so vacuous and empty, and your posts are full of fallacies and strawmen . . . and I can claim on the Internet to membership in Mensa, so I WIN!!!"

The funniest part of all this is you don't even realize the irony.

My posts have NO fallacies and strawmen, because I haven't made any claims, dumbass.  Unlike you.  All I did was ask a question, which you spend enormous amounts of meaningless characters trying to avoid answering.  In fact, the main reason you're pissing and raving at me is because I refuse to let you turn this into, "I'm so much smarter, now YOU make all the claims and let me snipe at them."

This is an open message board, and anyone can post here.  Despite your desperate need to hide behind that and pretend THAT is the point I made by very carefully editing down my words, here's what I ACTUALLY said:

YOU came to this message board, uninvited and decidedly undesired, and started a thread with these words:

_"Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently."_

You came here specifically for the purpose of starting a thread to tell everyone how YOU have the one and only, absolute truth, and they are all stupid and intellectually inferior to you simply because they disagree with you.  I never denied that you have every right to come here and make a monumental, arrogant ass of yourself, just as I don't deny that Jehovah's Witnesses have every legal right to go into neighborhoods and knock on doors.  But, like Jehovah's Witnesses, you are uninvited and unwanted and mocked.

You seem to want very much to force me to have a proxy debate with Rick Potts, with him doing all the thinking and you taking all the credit.  Unfortunately for you, I can't debate Rick Potts because he isn't here.  YOU are.  And my challenge is not to the article about him that you orgasmically posted; my challenge is to YOUR words, and your words only:

_Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently._

You have yet to answer my very simple question, despite writing reams of spittle-flecked invective about all the "beliefs" you want me to have stated instead:  Who asked you?  Why do you think you need to tell anyone anything?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I didn't respond to that, ya moron. Pay attention!
> 
> You have now dodged tw questions, ya sissy. Why are you like this? Let's try again:
> 
> If our brains and even personalities are not just based in and the result of chemicals...then, what else?
> 
> Redirect some of that prancing peacock energy to that lump between your ears and give it a go.



Yes, you Fart Fun.  I KNOW you didn't respond to that.  Pay attention!  I pointed out very clearly that you carefully edited what I said so that you could respond to something you wanted to pretend I said.

You have now asked two questions based on the words you want to force into my mouth, and you have now been told twice to fuck off with your cowardice and deal with my ACTUAL points.

Let's try again:  YOU made a claim:  "Our brains and even personalities are based in and the result of chemicals."  It is YOUR job to now explain and substantiate this claim.  It is NOT my job to make a counter-argument and prove you wrong.  I can see why you and Abu are such a great love match:  You both have the same intellectual cowardice.

Redirect some of that lying energy to that vacuum between YOUR ears and try having the real conversation in front of you, instead of trying to divert it to the imaginary conversation script you invented for me.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Cecilie1200 said:


> "Our brains and even personalities are based in and the result of chemicals." It is YOUR job to now explain and substantiate this claim.


Thanks for the softball.

Because our brains are chemical physical systems, governed by the same physical laws as every other physical system.

Now that your whining has been crushed and dismissed, your turn.

If not just a chemical system, what else?

Or, roll into a ball and suck your thumb some more. Your call.


----------



## abu afak

Cecilie1200 said:


> I am reading a book that is actually called "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist", because frankly, this is what I'm left thinking every single time I listen to an atheist trying to make a logical argument (and it's pretty rare that they even do try).
> 
> 1)  The scientific evidence confirms that the universe exploded into being out of nothing.  You'd be hard-pressed to find a major, respected scientist who doesn't accept the Big Bang Theory.  Either someone or something created something out of nothing (the Christian view), or no one and nothing created something out of nothing (the atheistic view).  Which one requires more faith?  The atheistic view.
> 
> 2)  The genetic structure of even the simplest life form on Earth contains a complex code equivalent to 1,000 encyclopedias worth of information.  Christians believe that coded information that complex requires an intelligent being to code it.  Atheists believe that non-intelligent natural forces can create it randomly.  Which one requires more faith?  The atheists.
> 
> 3)  The birth, life, and death of a man claiming to be God were foretold in ancient writings hundreds of years before the birth of Christ.  His birthplace, bloodline, and time of death were all predicted.  Multiple eyewitnesses testified to these events happening, even though they had nothing whatsoever to gain by doing so.  In fact, many of them persecuted and killed in horrific ways for doing so, but not one of them ever recanted.  Ancient historians and writers allude to or confirm these events, and archaeology is increasingly corroborating them.  If this were a criminal investigation, we'd already be preparing indictments.  Atheists nevertheless just wave it all away, or more rarely try to produce the multiple theories that would all have to be true all at once to explain those things away.  And, most notably, they have no evidence for any of those theories, much less all of them.  Which viewpoint requires more faith?  The atheists.
> 
> Sorry, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  I am a Christian because I'm just too realistic and skeptical to close my eyes, stick my fingers in my ears, and proclaim a belief in the face of contradictory evidence.  I'll leave the pie-eyed, unicorn-fart fantasies and daydreams to the fanatical atheists.


So you post your Wacko theories to Crusader Frank.
An Biblical LITTERalist and Evolution denying Nutbag.
He also denies Global warming and probably 10 other Basic science facts.,
the usual RW Numb nuts..
like you.

1. I already told you about 'God of the Gaps.'
Yours is the classic and most common fallacy.
*We don't know how a few things started YET but that's no reason to fabricate a god. *
Does NOT follow.
It's just replicating the terrible laziness and 'logic' of those who made the Fire, Lightning, and Fertility god/s.






						God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")
					

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards. "Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?" And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.  If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.' The same...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




2. Ah Yes, the unfathomable 'complexity' argument. Yawn.
Molecules, even non living ones, have natural tendencies, some form long chain molecules that look like life's precursors. And one must balance 'complexity againbst time and chances. Billions of years on quadrillions of planets with infinite amounts of micro-conditions and ingredients.
There might be many other forms of life. Life may even be probable.
In the meantime... been there/done that topic OF COURSE.
I have thread starts debunking all the Pillar Fallacies.

a. Junkyard Tornado Fallacy. "Long odds" of life/complex life​​b. Organic Materials Essential for Life on Earth are Found for the First time on the Surface of an Asteroid​​c. Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on​

_3a.  ""..The birth, life, and death of a man claiming to be God were foretold in ancient writings hundreds of years before the birth of Christ...""_

Oooh, Campfire talk!!!!!  (-:  and many similar gods abound. Floods and Resurrections, for MANY other gods too.
No doubt. All borrow/poach/mix/match.
I think Odin is cool.

_3b ""Multiple eyewitnesses testified to these events happening, even though they had nothing whatsoever to gain by doing so.""_

and we have their testimony do we? Only that written in books wishing to deify someone.
Those books full of contradictions.

*In fact, there is NO extra-Biblical evidence of anyone's Divinity.. and barely his life!*


Summary:
It takes No "faith to be an atheist" (or agnostic) only the ability to say "we don't know/know yet." (let's look! The birth of science in many fields)
We are born atheists. *It's only through Indoctrination people come to believe in gods.
No one would be finding Haysoos on a desert Island unpreached to.
Which/WITCH religion you are is a geo-Cultural accident  of birth, not a discernible truth.*

I am an atheist.
Show me some EVIDENCE of a god and will jump on the train.
ie, If the stars all line up one night and form the word "Vishnu" in Hindi, I would be thrilled. I'm in!
Of course, that would mean Tens of Millions of Suicides and complete disillusionment for the other 80% of the planet. But not me!
In fact, no matter which you believe in, at least 75% of the planet is wrong, even if one stepped in it.

No, Logic/history (NOT "Faith") tells us one thing on the topic: Man Created Gods.
Tens of Thousands of them. All on which we have a verdict have gone by the wayside... with no positive evidence in sight.

`


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well there's where you are wrong. *They get to reap the benefits of the science built on a foundation in part of evolutionary theory.*


. Puhleeze. You can KEEP YOUR LIES in your pants.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What else would it be? Do you think your brain is made up of lucky charms?


Awareness


----------



## Hollie

Cecilie1200 said:


> YOU apparently think exactly that, if you consider blind chance the only possible explanation.


The ''blind chance'' slogan is nonsense right out of creation ministries. It shows a complete lack of understanding about the most basic precepts of biological evolution.


----------



## Grumblenuts

It's also a more pathetic strawman than an if-apology. _I think you think this BS about you that I just concocted because I also think you think this BS about you that I just concocted. Except, completely lacking the balls to take responsibility for my own opinions, I say "YOU apparently think" instead of simply saying "I think you think" blaa, blaa, blaa. -or- better yet, "Is this what you think?"_


----------



## Dagosa

Cecilie1200 said:


> I am reading a book that is actually called "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist", because frankly, this is what I'm left thinking every single time I listen to an atheist trying to make a logical argument (and it's pretty rare that they even do try).
> 
> 1)  The scientific evidence confirms that the universe exploded into being out of nothing.  You'd be hard-pressed to find a major, respected scientist who doesn't accept the Big Bang Theory.  Either someone or something created something out of nothing (the Christian view), or no one and nothing created something out of nothing (the atheistic view).  Which one requires more faith?  The atheistic view.
> 
> 2)  The genetic structure of even the simplest life form on Earth contains a complex code equivalent to 1,000 encyclopedias worth of information.  Christians believe that coded information that complex requires an intelligent being to code it.  Atheists believe that non-intelligent natural forces can create it randomly.  Which one requires more faith?  The atheists.
> 
> 3)  The birth, life, and death of a man claiming to be God were foretold in ancient writings hundreds of years before the birth of Christ.  His birthplace, bloodline, and time of death were all predicted.  Multiple eyewitnesses testified to these events happening, even though they had nothing whatsoever to gain by doing so.  In fact, many of them persecuted and killed in horrific ways for doing so, but not one of them ever recanted.  Ancient historians and writers allude to or confirm these events, and archaeology is increasingly corroborating them.  If this were a criminal investigation, we'd already be preparing indictments.  Atheists nevertheless just wave it all away, or more rarely try to produce the multiple theories that would all have to be true all at once to explain those things away.  And, most notably, they have no evidence for any of those theories, much less all of them.  Which viewpoint requires more faith?  The atheists.
> 
> Sorry, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  I am a Christian because I'm just too realistic and skeptical to close my eyes, stick my fingers in my ears, and proclaim a belief in the face of contradictory evidence.  I'll leave the pie-eyed, unicorn-fart fantasies and daydreams to the fanatical atheists.


It takes time to make up shit. Seriously, do think you have that much time you could be wasting on your “daydreams and fantasies.“


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> Awareness


Your brain is made of awareness?

That don't make no sense Ricky bobby


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Your brain is made of awareness?
> 
> That don't make no sense Ricky bobby



If this were The Imitation Game, I'd correctly say you were a robot.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> If this were The Imitation Game, I'd correctly say you were a robot.


It's not my fault you can't explain your own ideas in simple English sentences. That's your fault Francis


----------



## abu afak

Cecilie1200 said:


> I already knew you were functionally illiterate, but sometimes you still amaze me with your complete inability to read and understand words.
> Here's the full quote that you deliberately mangled so that you could pretend to "answer" something it didn't say, but that you preferred to what it ACTUALLY said:Oh, so Smithsonian Magazine forced you to come to this message board and start a thread about how "brilliantly" you were going to "destroy" evangelical Christians by *explaining something they 1) already know about, and 2) don't care about in regards to their religious beliefs, because it doesn't affect them in the slightest?*
> 
> It is obvious to anyone who is not Fart Fun and who can therefore comprehend the English language that the "they" I was speaking of was Christians, not the people you slavishly worship as your heroes because you mistakenly think that adoring them will somehow convey their intelligence to you by some sort of fanboy osmosis.
> 
> Christians are already well aware of evolutionary theory, contrary to the apparent belief of your spiritual boyfriend, Abu.  Christians also don't give a damn about evolutionary theory in regards to their religious beliefs, because evolution is irrelevant to Christianity, also contrary to the apparent belief of your boyfriend, Abu.
> 
> I find it heartwarming that you could find a soulmate of the same intellectual caliber as you on this message board, and I wish you and Abu many happy years of babbling mindlessly at each other and pinning clippings from Smithsonian to your walls together.


One can be an evangelical and believe in evolution, Just like Pat Robertson now acknowledges 'Million of Years old."

Religious doctrines change, or most do. The most indoctrinated just get to be funnier and Funnier. 
Even the Saudis are lightening up a bit.
`


----------



## Grumblenuts

Cecilie1200 said:


> 2) The genetic structure of even the simplest life form on Earth contains a complex code equivalent to 1,000 encyclopedias worth of information. Christians believe that coded information that complex requires an intelligent being to code it. Atheists believe that non-intelligent natural forces can create it randomly.


Best study what Christians and atheists truly believe and don't believe.


----------



## Mac-7

Godless libs cant stand the fact that people of faith exist


----------



## Death Angel

fncceo said:


> Evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life on Earth that fits the existing observations and evidence


Evolution is the best explanation if you insist on denying the Word of God.


----------



## Dagosa

abu afak said:


> One can be an evangelical and believe in evolution, Just like Pat Robertson now acknowledges 'Million of Years old."
> 
> Religious doctrines change, or most do. The most indoctrinated just get to be funnier and Funnier.
> Even the Saudis are lightening up a bit.
> `


Yup.
Religious doctrine  changes to keep the tithings and donations coming in.


----------



## Dagosa

Mac-7 said:


> Godless libs cant stand the fact that people of faith exist


Of course, Faith is nothing more then believing in made up shit with no proof. 
So yes, there are plenty of people who believe in made up shit.


----------



## Batcat

Dagosa said:


> Of course, Faith is nothing more then believing in made up shit with no proof.
> So yes, there are plenty of people who believe in made up shit.


Do you honestly believe we could understand how the entity called God created the universe if He chose to explain to us the scientific details? We barely have a grasp of quantum mechanics and the creation of the universe or the many universes probably involves physics far beyond that which we comprehend today. 

Plus if God did tell us how to create a universe you can bet we would take some of that knowledge and use it to develop weapons that we would employ to destroy ourselves and possibly this planet if not the entire solar system or maybe even the galaxy. 

We lack the maturity to handle the processes involved in creating a universe. 

Vladimir Putin's nuclear tsunami: It's called Poseidon - a giant torpedo that could travel thousands of miles undetected before swamping cities with radioactive waves. No wonder fears over the Russian threat are growing, writes TOM LEONARD​








						Vladimir Putin's nuclear tsunami
					

TOM LEONARD: The Poseidon 2M39 torpedo would set off a chain of deadly radioactive tsunamis that would smash into towns and cities leaving them uninhabitable for decades.




					www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## Dagosa

Batcat said:


> Do you honestly believe we could understand how the entity called God created the universe if He chose to explain to us the scientific details? We barely have a grasp of quantum mechanics and the creation of the universe or the many universes probably involves physics far beyond that which we comprehend today.
> 
> Plus if God did tell us how to create a universe you can bet we would take some of that knowledge and use it to develop weapons that we would employ to destroy ourselves and possibly this planet if not the entire solar system or maybe even the galaxy.
> 
> We lack the maturity to handle the processes involved in creating a universe.
> 
> Vladimir Putin's nuclear tsunami: It's called Poseidon - a giant torpedo that could travel thousands of miles undetected before swamping cities with radioactive waves. No wonder fears over the Russian threat are growing, writes TOM LEONARD​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir Putin's nuclear tsunami
> 
> 
> TOM LEONARD: The Poseidon 2M39 torpedo would set off a chain of deadly radioactive tsunamis that would smash into towns and cities leaving them uninhabitable for decades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk


Are you saying God has trouble communicating ?


----------



## Batcat

Dagosa said:


> Are you saying God has trouble communicating ?


I am saying we have trouble understanding.


----------



## fncceo

Death Angel said:


> Evolution is the best explanation if you insist on denying the Word of God.



The scriptures are woefully silent on the subject of dinosaurs and DNA.


----------



## Dale Smith

abu afak said:


> One can be an evangelical and believe in evolution, Just like Pat Robertson now acknowledges 'Million of Years old."
> 
> Religious doctrines change, or most do. The most indoctrinated just get to be funnier and Funnier.
> Even the Saudis are lightening up a bit.
> `


I bet you really believe the bullshit you peddle. I am not saying you are stupid.....you simply have bad luck when it comes to logical thinking.
You are a tornado of bullshit and refuse to "die out"......SMH


----------



## Mac-7

Dagosa said:


> Of course, Faith is nothing more then believing in made up shit with no proof.
> So yes, there are plenty of people who believe in made up shit.


Why do you care?

Is Satan offering a bounty on fallen Christians?


----------



## Dagosa

Mac-7 said:


> Why do you care?
> 
> Is Satan offering a bounty on fallen Christians?


More made up shit in response.


----------



## Mac-7

Dagosa said:


> More made up shit in response.


Really?

You rant against Christians and its obvious why


----------



## Dagosa

Mac-7 said:


> Really?
> 
> You rant against Christians and its obvious why


Not all Christians. Just the frauds...


----------



## Mac-7

Dagosa said:


> Not all Christians. Just the frauds...


The “frauds” being defined as what?


----------



## Dagosa

Mac-7 said:


> The “frauds” being defined as what?





Mac-7 said:


> The “frauds” being defined as what?


Start with you and all the Humpers….and your claimed savior, Trump.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dale Smith said:


> I bet you really believe the bullshit you peddle. I am not saying you are stupid.....you simply have bad luck when it comes to logical thinking.
> You are a tornado of bullshit and refuse to "die out"......SMH


Yet you can't eke out a single argument to support your crybabying.


----------



## cnm

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yet you can't eke out a single argument to support your crybabying.


Haven't seen you around for a bit. All good?


----------



## Dale Smith

cnm said:


> Haven't seen you around for a bit. All good?




Thank you, cnm for asking....hope all is well with you. I made this video on the 8th of October and after 3 treatments of this natural/ holistic "tea" my nephew introduced me to. October 1st I went into at home hospice care. I should have died by the end of August and was totally fine with that. Since I lost my son in February, life wasn't worth much to me. You should see me now. The painful lesions that were such a deep purple and itched and burned  are fading and no longer are a source of discomfort.  I got down to 134 pounds and I have gained 20 pounds in a month. What has happened to me is nothing short of miraculous.

Godspeed to ya....


----------



## Synthaholic

Death Angel said:


> Evolution is the best explanation if you insist on denying the Word of God.


Which god?


----------



## Dale Smith

Synthaholic said:


> Which god?


How about this one?


Since my near death experience and still in a very precarious position? I have worked hard on loving and caring about people more than ever.  But there are those like you and your fellow commie pals that make me realize that I couldn't warm up those of your ilk even if we were cremated together. You are the same clueless jerk you have always been and it's sad. Seems that you have been turned over to a reprobate mind. You thrive on hatred for anyone that believes differently from you.


----------



## Synthaholic

Dale Smith said:


> How about this one?
> 
> 
> Since my near death experience and still in a very precarious position? I have worked hard on loving and caring about people more than ever.  But there are those like you and your fellow commie pals that make me realize that I couldn't warm up those of your ilk even if we were cremated together. You are the same clueless jerk you have always been and it's sad. Seems that you have been turned over to a reprobate mind. You thrive on hatred for anyone that believes differently from you.


I'm a clueless jerk because I don't know which of the hundred (thousands?) of "gods" there have been through history that you're talking about?


----------



## Dale Smith

Synthaholic said:


> I'm a clueless jerk because I don't know which of the hundred (thousands?) of "gods" there have been through history that you're talking about?


 Regardless of what you say, I am going to add you to the list of people to pray for. I suspect that you are carrying around baggage that is weighing you down. I bet in real time you are probably a nice guy and someone to have a beer with. But here? Your alter-ego takea over and you become so abrasive and rude. It doesn't help that you get attacked and it only causes you to become more staid in your beliefs and impossible to have a decent conversation. I apologize for some of the things I posted to you in the past. I have been just as a much of a jerk as you have and I am not proud of that. I can't change the past and as I continue to have the sword of Damocles of death swinging back and forth over me, all I can do is try to make amends. I am not afraid to die and I have prepared meticulously going even so far as to paying for my cremation in advance. My apology is not for any other reason than to purge my conscience. Be well and try to open up your heart to the possibilities.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

cnm said:


> Haven't seen you around for a bit. All good?


Yes, all good! There just isn't much interesting content here anymore. It's mostly angry right wingers in an echo chamber.


----------



## Synthaholic

Dale Smith said:


> Regardless of what you say, I am going to add you to the list of people to pray for. I suspect that you are carrying around baggage that is weighing you down. I bet in real time you are probably a nice guy and someone to have a beer with. But here? Your alter-ego takea over and you become so abrasive and rude. It doesn't help that you get attacked and it only causes you to become more staid in your beliefs and impossible to have a decent conversation. I apologize for some of the things I posted to you in the past. I have been just as a much of a jerk as you have and I am not proud of that. I can't change the past and as I continue to have the sword of Damocles of death swinging back and forth over me, all I can do is try to make amends. I am not afraid to die and I have prepared meticulously going even so far as to paying for my cremation in advance. My apology is not for any other reason than to purge my conscience. Be well and try to open up your heart to the possibilities.


It's sad that it takes this to turn you into a decent person. Which you probably have been all along, and this post from you is really as much about you as it is about me. I am a good guy who you would want to have a beer with. I've been making my living as a professional musician for 42 years now. 49 years if you count my work with Wurlitzer, literally as a kid. Nearly all working musicians are good people. And I have plenty of normal, regular interactions with plenty of actual conservatives on this site. But not Trumpers, not wingnuts, not people who want to turn this country into a dictatorship because the majority doesn't agree with them that Gays are subhumans, or women should be paid less, or corporations are people, until it's time to tax them, that is.

I am sorry about your illness, whatever it is.


----------



## Dagosa

Batcat said:


> I am saying we have trouble understanding.


Wow. God needs an interpreter. That’s a new one.


----------



## Dagosa

Batcat said:


> We lack the maturity to handle the processes involved in creating a universe.


So, you believe  in an all powerful supreme being who can do anything except, talk legibly. That’s a new one.


----------



## Dagosa

Mac-7


abu afak said:


> One can be an evangelical and believe in evolution, Just like Pat Robertson now acknowledges 'Million of Years old."
> 
> Religious doctrines change, or most do. The most indoctrinated just get to be funnier and Funnier.
> Even the Saudis are lightening up a bit.
> `


As soon an evangelical says he believes in evolution, the contradictions begin.


----------



## Mac-7

Dagosa said:


> Mac-7
> 
> As soon an evangelical says he believes in evolution, the contradictions begin.


The key is the origin of creation

Intelligent design makes far more sense than the dumb luck theory


----------



## Batcat

Dagosa said:


> So, you believe  in an all powerful supreme being who can do anything except, talk legibly. That’s a new one.


You obviously do not understand the problems in translating the various languages the Bible was written in.

For example the King James Version translated the Sixth Commandment as, “Thou shalt not kill.”

More modern Bibles translate it as, “Thou shalt not murder.”

The Sixth Commandment is just a simple example.









						>I Am Back
					

>I am back, sort of.A few weeks ago, I stopped blogging in order to finish writing my Self-Study report for the seminary. I was not planning to return to blogging until March, but so many things…




					claudemariottini.com
				












						5 Bible Translations You Should Avoid — CRIT-LARGE
					

The following translations listed below should be avoided altogether, as utilizing them can lead to grave theological errors, the teaching of a radically different gospel, and a counterfeit Jesus.




					www.critlarge.com


----------



## Dale Smith

Synthaholic said:


> It's sad that it takes this to turn you into a decent person. Which you probably have been all along, and this post from you is really as much about you as it is about me. I am a good guy who you would want to have a beer with. I've been making my living as a professional musician for 42 years now. 49 years if you count my work with Wurlitzer, literally as a kid. Nearly all working musicians are good people. And I have plenty of normal, regular interactions with plenty of actual conservatives on this site. But not Trumpers, not wingnuts, not people who want to turn this country into a dictatorship because the majority doesn't agree with them that Gays are subhumans, or women should be paid less, or corporations are people, until it's time to tax them, .
> that is
> I am sorry about your illness, whatever it is.


 I was a nice guy before. I simply reacted to being attacked and I easily put the offending party in his or her place. I might have been better served not using the scorched earth approach but it works. Also the leftists here have a tendency to "dogpile" those that don't buy into their agenda. I would simply step into the fray on their behalf and easily booted the offending party's  cyber-behinds to the curb. All in good fun, of course, because no one really dislikes the other side at all, correct?

I don't know what a "Trumper" is but if it is anything like Bidenism? I want no part of that. I find it amazing how so many leftists scream "Fascist!" while waving the hammer and sickle flag. There isn't a red c--t hair's worth of difference between the two as both the "state" controls and rules over all. I have observed as to how so many have abandoned their country ruled by communists but not so many flee to it. The only attempt at dictatorship is happening on the left side of this equation. Gays? Whoever said that homos are "sub-human". Any and all I know simply don't give a shit about what two or more consenting adults do behind closed doors. My question is why do they feel the need to be "loud and proud" about their sexual proclivities while pushing their stance on children with Drag Queen story telling time and wanting to teach young boys on how to apply make-up and twerk? I have so many questions that no one can answer with anything but an insult. Women being paid less is a 'rightwing" thing? do tell?

Corporations are not people, they are persons just like you are according to Black's Law Dictionary and you were "incorporated" with the birth certificate that is printed on bond paper and can be used under the Uniform Commercial Code as a negotiable instrument as our labor was pledged as surety against the debt by USA. INC in 1933 and our labor is what moves their fiat currency. all government agencies are incorporated and so are all states, all counties and cities and most towns.  why does it matter? It has to do with jurisdiction.

Anyway, so you are a professional musician? What genre? Or which one do you prefer? I have been a making money at playing music since 1982. I never made it my profession but I don't play for the money, I play for the sheer joy of making music and I am not good enough to make it my life's work even if I wanted. It's cool that you have. Keyboardists are always in high demand. I would have preferred the piano over and the sax over playing bass....still? I'm not bad. Here is a video I did when one of my friends didn't thing I could play "Outstanding" by the Gap Band so I proved him wrong in a friendly way, that is.....


----------



## Dagosa

Batcat said:


> You obviously do not understand the problems in translating the various languages the Bible was written in.
> 
> For example the King James Version translated the Sixth Commandment as, “Thou shalt not kill.”
> 
> More modern Bibles translate it as, “Thou shalt not murder.”
> 
> The Sixth Commandment is just a simple example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >I Am Back
> 
> 
> >I am back, sort of.A few weeks ago, I stopped blogging in order to finish writing my Self-Study report for the seminary. I was not planning to return to blogging until March, but so many things…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> claudemariottini.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5 Bible Translations You Should Avoid — CRIT-LARGE
> 
> 
> The following translations listed below should be avoided altogether, as utilizing them can lead to grave theological errors, the teaching of a radically different gospel, and a counterfeit Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.critlarge.com


God seems to have a problem communicating. Someone as all powerful should be able to make anyone enlightened without the use of paper and pen. It’s laughable how devoted to a scroipture you guys are that you can’t even agree on.


----------



## Batcat

Dagosa said:


> God seems to have a problem communicating. Someone as all powerful should be able to make anyone enlightened without the use of paper and pen. It’s laughable how devoted to a scroipture you guys are that you can’t even agree on.


Perhaps God feels we have all the necessary basic ideas of Christianity and further communications are not required at this time.

Humans do tend to make things far more complicated than necessary.

Perhaps this sums everything truly necessary up.

_For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. – John 3:16_


----------



## Grumblenuts

Or it just complicates things further. How does "giving up" one's only son (even for only a few days) get interpreted as "love"? Any real father doing similar would doubtless receive prison time. Also, define "perish"? Supposedly, one's soul lives on but their body still perishes, right? Did this John somehow fail to understand the term or was his translation that sloppy?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Batcat said:


> For example the King James Version translated the Sixth Commandment as, “Thou shalt not kill.”
> 
> More modern Bibles translate it as, “Thou shalt not murder.”


Because they new the original was stupid, so they changed it.


----------



## Dagosa

Batcat said:


> Perhaps God feels we have all the necessary basic ideas of Christianity and further communications are not required at this time.


Hilarious. What ever your god feels, is sad. Only 31% of the worlds population is ChristIan. How can such an all powerful, all knowing entity be so mixed up. No required ? You mean, not existent. His message isn’t heard because, it was never sent. Just opinions of old bullshit artists trying to control the masses and failing miserably.


----------



## Dagosa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because they new the original was stupid, so they changed it.


Yup
Lots of killing needed to be justified. Gotta kill those heathens, Jews and Muslims who won’t convert. That’s OK By Christians. Hitler et al doing the Christian god’s  work….
Few religions kill more then Christians


----------



## Dagosa

Batcat said:


> Perhaps God feels we have all the necessary basic ideas of Christianity and further communications are not required at this time.
> 
> Humans do tend to make things far more complicated than necessary.
> 
> Perhaps this sums everything truly necessary up.
> 
> _For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. – John 3:16_


God loves no one. Regardless of which god it is, the top ten biggest atrocities were done on the name of religion…..and the Christian God is among the most violent.




__





						Top 10 Biggest Atrocities Committed in the Name of Religion
					

An estimated 89 percent of the world's population believes in some sort of monotheistic or polytheistic system - some type of religion. While the numbers per religion are only estimates, the overall message is that humans are a religious race.




					www.thetoptens.com


----------



## Batcat

Dagosa said:


> God loves no one. Regardless of which god it is, the top ten biggest atrocities were done on the name of religion…..and the Christian God is among the most violent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10 Biggest Atrocities Committed in the Name of Religion
> 
> 
> An estimated 89 percent of the world's population believes in some sort of monotheistic or polytheistic system - some type of religion. While the numbers per religion are only estimates, the overall message is that humans are a religious race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thetoptens.com


People committed many of those atrocities in their belief their god supported their actions or as a way to misuse the local religion they didn’t believe in to obtain support to achieve a goal.



			https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-was-hitlers-religioni


----------



## Batcat

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because they new the original was stupid, so they changed it.


True. God approved of a lot of killing in the Old Testament.

For example: Joshua 6:20 - 6:24
New International Version

_i20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

22 Joshua said to the two men who had spied out the land, “Go into the prostitute’s house and bring her out and all who belong to her, in accordance with your oath to her.” 23 So the young men who had done the spying went in and brought out Rahab, her father and mother, her brothers and sisters and all who belonged to her. They brought out her entire family and put them in a place outside the camp of Israel.

24 Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the Lord’s house. 25 But Joshua spared Rahab the prostitute, with her family and all who belonged to her, because she hid the men Joshua had sent as spies to Jericho—and she lives among the Israelites to this day._


----------



## Grumblenuts

Batcat said:


> _25 But Joshua spared Rahab the prostitute, with her family and all who belonged to her, because she hid the men Joshua had sent as spies to Jericho—and she lives among the Israelites to this day._


To this day, ay?


----------



## Dagosa

Batcat said:


> People committed many of those atrocities in their belief their god supported their actions or as a way to misuse the local religion they didn’t believe in to obtain support to achieve a goal.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-was-hitlers-religioni


God did nothing to correct them, because he doesn’t exist….
People committed all those atrocities in the name of a god they made up.


----------



## Dagosa

Batcat said:


> People committed many of those atrocities in their belief their god supported their actions or as a way to misuse the local religion they didn’t believe in to obtain support to achieve a goal.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-was-hitlers-religioni


BTW, I’ll believe Catholic opinion when they give away all their wealth and become true followers of the man they choose to emulate, Christ.


----------



## Batcat

Dagosa said:


> BTW, I’ll believe Catholic opinion when they give away all their wealth and become true followers of the man they choose to emulate, Christ.


The wealth of the Catholic Church bothers me too.


----------



## Batcat

Grumblenuts said:


> To this day, ay?


Perhaps the author didn’t consider how long his writings would endure.


----------



## Dagosa

Batcat said:


> The wealth of the Catholic Church bothers me too.


Yes, but it isn’t just a Catholic phenomenon. The wealth and prowler of other churches is obvious too.




__





						List of wealthiest religious organizations - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Batcat

Dagosa said:


> Yes, but it isn’t just a Catholic phenomenon. The wealth and prowler of other churches is obvious too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of wealthiest religious organizations - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


When I pick a church to attend, I usually attend a small church. The bigger churches seem too awe-inspiring and grandiose to me.


----------



## Dagosa

Batcat said:


> When I pick a church to attend, I usually attend a small church. The bigger churches seem too awe-inspiring and grandiose to me.


I hear you. Imo, if we are so inclined. we should support the smaller churches.


----------



## Dagosa

Batcat said:


> When I pick a church to attend, I usually attend a small church. The bigger churches seem too awe-inspiring and grandiose to me.


I would be in favor of re-examining the tax structure for the nonprofit status that Churches seem to enjoy.
The practicing net worth should be limited. It’s for sure that the Salvation Army and AmericanRed Cross remain  humble in their endeavors . Why can’t all churches ?
Salvation Army. 2018
Total Revenue: $3,863,646,000

Total Expenses: $3,703,604,000
ARC, over 91% effective service expenditure rate.
Pretty big, obviously with very little fat.


----------



## Batcat

Dagosa said:


> BTW, I’ll believe Catholic opinion when they give away all their wealth and become true followers of the man they choose to emulate, Christ.


I will be quite impressed with the Catholic Church if it ever does just that.


----------



## Batcat

Dagosa said:


> Yes, but it isn’t just a Catholic phenomenon. The wealth and prowler of other churches is obvious too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of wealthiest religious organizations - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


Unfortunately true. Once Constantine made Christianity the state religion men started to use it as a tool to accumulate great wealth.









						Rome, Constantine and Christianity - A Very Brief History - Christian Valour
					

The story of the fall of Rome, is a rather patchy tale, depending on what you consider 'Rome' and what you consider 'Fall'.




					www.christianvalour.com
				




***snip***

_Simply lifting the heavy persecution of Christianity was enough to mark its flourishing beginnings. More than this, Emperor Constantine poured funds into the Christian religion, exempt religious officials from certain other civil obligations, built extensive and prestigious buildings, produced Christian inspired currency, and more (Pohlsander, 2004). Indeed “during the thirty years of his reign, more change took place in the status, structure, and beliefs of the Christian Church than during any  previous period of its history” (Drake, 2005). Although I would argue that Christ’s resurrection and the spread of the early Church was also slightly influential (but whatever).

Nonetheless, Constantine was a big deal for Christianity.

Of course, as good as all this was for the Christian religion and the salvation of countless souls from the Lord’s righteous Judgment, we can always trust humans to really humanize the whole situation. The rise in funding and status of Christianity inevitably brought with it a rise in those who would embrace it for financial gain, and other benefits. Thus we see what eventually came to be a rather unofficial (but quite serious) difference between “the Church of power and the Church of piety” (Stark, 2009). Not only this of course, but general disagreements from within the Church itself on many matters. Long story short Christianity became the official religion of the ‘Roman empire’, but not necessarily with all the right outcomes. Fast forward from here and you end up with a Catholic dominated West (Holy Roman Empire), and the Latin orthodox dominated East (Byzantium)… sort of (Verkholantsev, 2012).t 


Dagosa said:



			God did nothing to correct them, because he doesn’t exist….
People committed all those atrocities in the name of a god they made up.
		
Click to expand...

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I personally believe God is a designer who uses evolution as one of his tools.

I decided to believe in a creator or designer in a biology class in high school where we were studying chemistry of a leaf.



			HOW A LEAF MAKES FOOD :: PHOTOSYNTHESIS ::
		





_


----------

