Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[james bond]

I think you’re missing the goals of the creationist industry.

"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the Bible."
-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey


It’s precisely the agenda of creationists that excludes them from a reliable association for peer review.

Hence, creationism is not science.



An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts. But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and curse the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs.

"But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
Dr. Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33

Thus, creationism is not science.


Science starts with observations. From the observations may come Scientific Laws, or detailed descriptions of physical phenomena. But science goes further than that. If a scientist can see connections, patterns and regularity, a hypothesis can be formulated to explain the observations. If enough data is gathered that supports the hypothesis, and experiments confirm the idea, and no contrary observations can be found, a scientific theory is put forward. Theories are the goal, the pinnacle, of science. But in creationism, the observations don't come first--they don't even count at all. Creationism starts with the bible and will not deviate from what is written. All data, observations and conclusions must conform with their interpretation of the bible, or be rejected out of hand.


It’s important that you raised the case of Piltdown man. One might wonder how Charles Dawson got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of Archaeoraptor. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of Piltdown. But eventually the correction occurs.


I’m curious to get your reaction to one of the many creationist frauds that was perpetrated by a “creation scientist”. Are these the folks you believe should be doing peer review?

She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen

Creationism is science because it's observational science. It's testable. It's falsifiable for the the most part. I don't think you have been listening to what I wrote. Why don't you name one thing that is observable, testable and falsifiable with evolution? Don't use natural selection or microevolution because we agree on that. Can you admit that evolution hasn't produced much by believing in it?

On the other hand, we have made numerous and remarkable advancement through creation science. I don't think I have to repeat the list of accomplishments of creation scientists and how important they have been from my previous links.

Finally, you do not know the difference between ID and creation science. You may as well get the fail award. ROTFL

Your claim that supernaturalism is “observational science” is simply not true. You offered no relevant examples of what is observable within supernaturalism which I believe was a calculated strategy. Do you have any observable examples of men rising from the dead? How about global floods or Arcs or the planets revolving around the sun?

For examples of things that are observable, testable and falsifiable within evolution, well, there are many. Start here:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

The above is part 1.

You have heard of the flu virus, right? The various strains that kill people every year is one obvious example of evolution.

I think what you’re missing is that the latest version of fundamentalist Christianity called “creation science” is just rebranded “Biblical Creationism” Fundamentalists have become self-destructive with their efforts to force christian dogma into the public schools under the masquerade of science. Years ago, fundamentalist christians made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was originally called "Biblical Creationism" with no pretense. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they regrouped and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively more reactionary, more desperate, and truly, more reactionary.

For examples of how fundamentalists have been eviserated in their attempts to illegally force Christian dogma into the public school syllabus, look here: Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism


There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation. Not a single, understandable event in nature can be assigned a supernatural, supermagical cause.

We know with certainty that species and organisms evolve. That's a fact not in dispute by the modern science community. You may insist that modern science is flawed and unreliable but that is an issue only a fringe minority accepts.

The greatest evidence for a man rising from the dead is the Resurrection of Jesus. He is the only one. There are many people who witnessed the miracle and they are written down. The giant stone that could not be moved in front of Jesus' burial tomb was cast aside and the entrance open. There is more evidence if you read the evidence of the biblical scholars. The global flood is evidence by what we see in stratification. We see that canyons were cut out from the rushing waters. We see that mountains came up from beneath the seas. You can easily take a look at the evidence from the Ark Encounter Museum.

Is There Evidence of the Flood?

None of your 29+ evidence is valid. Dr. Theobald fails to address the origin of the first living thing or the mechanism by which that first organism diverged into every life form that has ever existed.

The flu virus traded parts with other flu viruses and mutated. However, neither the flu nor its new virus is evidence for evolution. The virus targets specific animals such as birds, swine, human and certain types of tissue. New variations of the virus arises from these infected animals. For example, a pig gets one strain of virus and is exposed to another strain from another animal. The cells within the pig creates the new virus.

The court cases are a different battle. It's not about science, but the mostly a battle over separation of church and state. The good fight will go in trying to teach creation science in our schools. That is the only way that we can bring back real science back into our classrooms and institutions of higher learning.

Not much of a Bible thumper, but just off hand it seems that anything is possible with a God. So he or she or it, could have created anything he wanted to. I kind of like the dual Evolution in some form. The DNA factor does not really add much to the subject since we are made of space stuff.

There are no aliens in Genesis. Strictly limited to Earth. Observational science demonstrates it. The fine tuning facts discovered by atheist scientists when studying the Big Bang shows that aliens are not natural. They are supernatural and we do not find them anywhere.

How Common is Life?

 

[james bond]

It starts with reading and believing in John 3:16. Have you heard of it?

John Grisham?

Nope, he wrote books about lawyers and lies. The latter may as well be about evolutionists.

"It's amazing how lies grow. You start with a small one that seems easy to cover, then you get boxed in and tell another one. Then another. People believe you at first, then they act upon your lies, and you catch yourself wishing you'd simply told the truth" John Grisham

 

[james bond]

I think you’re missing the goals of the creationist industry.

"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the Bible."
-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey


It’s precisely the agenda of creationists that excludes them from a reliable association for peer review.

Hence, creationism is not science.



An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts. But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and curse the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs.

"But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
Dr. Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33

Thus, creationism is not science.


Science starts with observations. From the observations may come Scientific Laws, or detailed descriptions of physical phenomena. But science goes further than that. If a scientist can see connections, patterns and regularity, a hypothesis can be formulated to explain the observations. If enough data is gathered that supports the hypothesis, and experiments confirm the idea, and no contrary observations can be found, a scientific theory is put forward. Theories are the goal, the pinnacle, of science. But in creationism, the observations don't come first--they don't even count at all. Creationism starts with the bible and will not deviate from what is written. All data, observations and conclusions must conform with their interpretation of the bible, or be rejected out of hand.


It’s important that you raised the case of Piltdown man. One might wonder how Charles Dawson got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of Archaeoraptor. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of Piltdown. But eventually the correction occurs.


I’m curious to get your reaction to one of the many creationist frauds that was perpetrated by a “creation scientist”. Are these the folks you believe should be doing peer review?

She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen

Creationism is science because it's observational science. It's testable. It's falsifiable for the the most part. I don't think you have been listening to what I wrote. Why don't you name one thing that is observable, testable and falsifiable with evolution? Don't use natural selection or microevolution because we agree on that. Can you admit that evolution hasn't produced much by believing in it?

On the other hand, we have made numerous and remarkable advancement through creation science. I don't think I have to repeat the list of accomplishments of creation scientists and how important they have been from my previous links.

Finally, you do not know the difference between ID and creation science. You may as well get the fail award. ROTFL

Your claim that supernaturalism is “observational science” is simply not true. You offered no relevant examples of what is observable within supernaturalism which I believe was a calculated strategy. Do you have any observable examples of men rising from the dead? How about global floods or Arcs or the planets revolving around the sun?

For examples of things that are observable, testable and falsifiable within evolution, well, there are many. Start here:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

The above is part 1.

You have heard of the flu virus, right? The various strains that kill people every year is one obvious example of evolution.

I think what you’re missing is that the latest version of fundamentalist Christianity called “creation science” is just rebranded “Biblical Creationism” Fundamentalists have become self-destructive with their efforts to force christian dogma into the public schools under the masquerade of science. Years ago, fundamentalist christians made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was originally called "Biblical Creationism" with no pretense. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they regrouped and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively more reactionary, more desperate, and truly, more reactionary.

For examples of how fundamentalists have been eviserated in their attempts to illegally force Christian dogma into the public school syllabus, look here: Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism


There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation. Not a single, understandable event in nature can be assigned a supernatural, supermagical cause.

We know with certainty that species and organisms evolve. That's a fact not in dispute by the modern science community. You may insist that modern science is flawed and unreliable but that is an issue only a fringe minority accepts.

The greatest evidence for a man rising from the dead is the Resurrection of Jesus. He is the only one. There are many people who witnessed the miracle and they are written down. The giant stone that could not be moved in front of Jesus' burial tomb was cast aside and the entrance open. There is more evidence if you read the evidence of the biblical scholars. The global flood is evidence by what we see in stratification. We see that canyons were cut out from the rushing waters. We see that mountains came up from beneath the seas. You can easily take a look at the evidence from the Ark Encounter Museum.

Is There Evidence of the Flood?

None of your 29+ evidence is valid. Dr. Theobald fails to address the origin of the first living thing or the mechanism by which that first organism diverged into every life form that has ever existed.

The flu virus traded parts with other flu viruses and mutated. However, neither the flu nor its new virus is evidence for evolution. The virus targets specific animals such as birds, swine, human and certain types of tissue. New variations of the virus arises from these infected animals. For example, a pig gets one strain of virus and is exposed to another strain from another animal. The cells within the pig creates the new virus.

The court cases are a different battle. It's not about science, but the mostly a battle over separation of church and state. The good fight will go in trying to teach creation science in our schools. That is the only way that we can bring back real science back into our classrooms and institutions of higher learning.

There is no evidence of Jesus rising from the dead. None. It is false to claim there were witnesses. There were none.

There was no immovable stone in front of any cave where Jesus was buried. Why are you re-writing the Bible’s?

There is no evidence of any global flood. The Ark museum is an embarrassment to thinking humans.

Oddly, your description of viruses identifies adaptation and evolution.

Kitzmiller certainly was about science. It was about the religion being taught under the false name of science. Real science does not teach magic and supernaturalism as “science”. Also, real science does not teach such absurdities as a geocentric model.

You are sadly mistaken and it will cost you severely after you die.

As for the rest, you are lying. You are not presenting an argument which is based on evidence, but just making assertions.

 

[Hollie]

I think you’re missing the goals of the creationist industry.

"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the Bible."
-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey


It’s precisely the agenda of creationists that excludes them from a reliable association for peer review.

Hence, creationism is not science.



An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts. But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and curse the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs.

"But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
Dr. Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33

Thus, creationism is not science.


Science starts with observations. From the observations may come Scientific Laws, or detailed descriptions of physical phenomena. But science goes further than that. If a scientist can see connections, patterns and regularity, a hypothesis can be formulated to explain the observations. If enough data is gathered that supports the hypothesis, and experiments confirm the idea, and no contrary observations can be found, a scientific theory is put forward. Theories are the goal, the pinnacle, of science. But in creationism, the observations don't come first--they don't even count at all. Creationism starts with the bible and will not deviate from what is written. All data, observations and conclusions must conform with their interpretation of the bible, or be rejected out of hand.


It’s important that you raised the case of Piltdown man. One might wonder how Charles Dawson got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of Archaeoraptor. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of Piltdown. But eventually the correction occurs.


I’m curious to get your reaction to one of the many creationist frauds that was perpetrated by a “creation scientist”. Are these the folks you believe should be doing peer review?

She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen

Creationism is science because it's observational science. It's testable. It's falsifiable for the the most part. I don't think you have been listening to what I wrote. Why don't you name one thing that is observable, testable and falsifiable with evolution? Don't use natural selection or microevolution because we agree on that. Can you admit that evolution hasn't produced much by believing in it?

On the other hand, we have made numerous and remarkable advancement through creation science. I don't think I have to repeat the list of accomplishments of creation scientists and how important they have been from my previous links.

Finally, you do not know the difference between ID and creation science. You may as well get the fail award. ROTFL

Your claim that supernaturalism is “observational science” is simply not true. You offered no relevant examples of what is observable within supernaturalism which I believe was a calculated strategy. Do you have any observable examples of men rising from the dead? How about global floods or Arcs or the planets revolving around the sun?

For examples of things that are observable, testable and falsifiable within evolution, well, there are many. Start here:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

The above is part 1.

You have heard of the flu virus, right? The various strains that kill people every year is one obvious example of evolution.

I think what you’re missing is that the latest version of fundamentalist Christianity called “creation science” is just rebranded “Biblical Creationism” Fundamentalists have become self-destructive with their efforts to force christian dogma into the public schools under the masquerade of science. Years ago, fundamentalist christians made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was originally called "Biblical Creationism" with no pretense. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they regrouped and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively more reactionary, more desperate, and truly, more reactionary.

For examples of how fundamentalists have been eviserated in their attempts to illegally force Christian dogma into the public school syllabus, look here: Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism


There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation. Not a single, understandable event in nature can be assigned a supernatural, supermagical cause.

We know with certainty that species and organisms evolve. That's a fact not in dispute by the modern science community. You may insist that modern science is flawed and unreliable but that is an issue only a fringe minority accepts.

The greatest evidence for a man rising from the dead is the Resurrection of Jesus. He is the only one. There are many people who witnessed the miracle and they are written down. The giant stone that could not be moved in front of Jesus' burial tomb was cast aside and the entrance open. There is more evidence if you read the evidence of the biblical scholars. The global flood is evidence by what we see in stratification. We see that canyons were cut out from the rushing waters. We see that mountains came up from beneath the seas. You can easily take a look at the evidence from the Ark Encounter Museum.

Is There Evidence of the Flood?

None of your 29+ evidence is valid. Dr. Theobald fails to address the origin of the first living thing or the mechanism by which that first organism diverged into every life form that has ever existed.

The flu virus traded parts with other flu viruses and mutated. However, neither the flu nor its new virus is evidence for evolution. The virus targets specific animals such as birds, swine, human and certain types of tissue. New variations of the virus arises from these infected animals. For example, a pig gets one strain of virus and is exposed to another strain from another animal. The cells within the pig creates the new virus.

The court cases are a different battle. It's not about science, but the mostly a battle over separation of church and state. The good fight will go in trying to teach creation science in our schools. That is the only way that we can bring back real science back into our classrooms and institutions of higher learning.

There is no evidence of Jesus rising from the dead. None. It is false to claim there were witnesses. There were none.

There was no immovable stone in front of any cave where Jesus was buried. Why are you re-writing the Bible’s?

There is no evidence of any global flood. The Ark museum is an embarrassment to thinking humans.

Oddly, your description of viruses identifies adaptation and evolution.

Kitzmiller certainly was about science. It was about the religion being taught under the false name of science. Real science does not teach magic and supernaturalism as “science”. Also, real science does not teach such absurdities as a geocentric model.

You are sadly mistaken and it will cost you severely after you die.

As for the rest, you are lying. You are not presenting an argument which is based on evidence, but just making assertions.

Ah, the universally sustaining benediction from angry religionists who can't force their gods on others: "you'll get yours".

Why the need to threaten me with your gods? Do you think your gods appreciate being used to try and intimidate me? Your threats carry a lot of false assumptions and fallacies.

Fallacies:

a. What if you have been given the wrong gods? You will spend an eternity apart from your gods for making such an egregious error

b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gods, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error

c. Gods might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error

d. What if the gods deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.

e. What if the gods are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.


Secondly, I have supplied to you rational arguments, based on accepted principles with supporting links. Your revulsion for science and rationity is obvious but lets try an experiment, shall we?

Here’s a simple test for faith in gods:

Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to “believe”, rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.

 

[fncceo]

it will cost you severely after you die.

I'm not taking my Visa card with me when I'm gone.

 

[james bond]

Ah, the universally sustaining benediction from angry religionists who can't force their gods on others: "you'll get yours".

Why the need to threaten me with your gods? Do you think your gods appreciate being used to try and intimidate me? Your threats carry a lot of false assumptions and fallacies.

Fallacies:

a. What if you have been given the wrong gods? You will spend an eternity apart from your gods for making such an egregious error

b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gods, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error

c. Gods might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error

d. What if the gods deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.

e. What if the gods are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.


Secondly, I have supplied to you rational arguments, based on accepted principles with supporting links. Your revulsion for science and rationity is obvious but lets try an experiment, shall we?

Here’s a simple test for faith in gods:

Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to “believe”, rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.

It's not threats nor intimidation. It's not I who is angry but God from you not believing in sacrificing his only son for you. I am only warning you as that is the opposite of temptation given to you by Satan regarding beliefs in evolution and not believing in sin and objective moral values. God provides ample warnings when one's thinking goes off the rails.

Atheist scientists and atheists have some weird false beliefs that betray them such as not believing in God, the supernatural and his word the Bible. They also believe in false science of evolution and evolutionary thinking. The closest thing I could agree with evo is natural selection and being against gmo foods.

So far, you have not been able to show any observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, nor experimental evidence of evolution. The long times of the evolution based on radiometric times have questionable assumptions. So does the philosophy (religion) of uniformitarianism. If uniformitarianism is true, then there would be on need to start putting in the philosophy of catastrophism. The creation scientists do not mix any uniformitarian philosophies with catastrophism. Even the threat of an asteroid(s) hitting the earth follows creation science. The mountain of evidence for evolution has been reduced to rubble.

You did provide arguments, more than the usual low brow atheists and evos here. However, I provided rebuttals and counter-arguments. Yet, you continue to ramble on with you diatribe against God. Is that so your worldview doesn't get destroyed? That you're able to keep your worldview despite the grievous errors?

As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science. There may be some Christians such as Christian scientists who believe that. That isn't creation science though.

 

[james bond]

it will cost you severely after you die.

I'm not taking my Visa card with me when I'm gone.

You have to leave your Visa card and all the things you bought behind. Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die? That said, there is more to life than that if you believe in Jesus and creation science. God reveals himself and then one starts to understand creation science is greater that evolution and evolutionary thinking. It's true science vs false science.

 

[Hollie]

Ah, the universally sustaining benediction from angry religionists who can't force their gods on others: "you'll get yours".

Why the need to threaten me with your gods? Do you think your gods appreciate being used to try and intimidate me? Your threats carry a lot of false assumptions and fallacies.

Fallacies:

a. What if you have been given the wrong gods? You will spend an eternity apart from your gods for making such an egregious error

b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gods, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error

c. Gods might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error

d. What if the gods deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.

e. What if the gods are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.


Secondly, I have supplied to you rational arguments, based on accepted principles with supporting links. Your revulsion for science and rationity is obvious but lets try an experiment, shall we?

Here’s a simple test for faith in gods:

Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to “believe”, rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.

It's not threats nor intimidation. It's not I who is angry but God from you not believing in sacrificing his only son for you. I am only warning you as that is the opposite of temptation given to you by Satan regarding beliefs in evolution and not believing in sin and objective moral values. God provides ample warnings when one's thinking goes off the rails.

Atheist scientists and atheists have some weird false beliefs that betray them such as not believing in God, the supernatural and his word the Bible. They also believe in false science of evolution and evolutionary thinking. The closest thing I could agree with evo is natural selection and being against gmo foods.

So far, you have not been able to show any observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, nor experimental evidence of evolution. The long times of the evolution based on radiometric times have questionable assumptions. So does the philosophy (religion) of uniformitarianism. If uniformitarianism is true, then there would be on need to start putting in the philosophy of catastrophism. The creation scientists do not mix any uniformitarian philosophies with catastrophism. Even the threat of an asteroid(s) hitting the earth follows creation science. The mountain of evidence for evolution has been reduced to rubble.

You did provide arguments, more than the usual low brow atheists and evos here. However, I provided rebuttals and counter-arguments. Yet, you continue to ramble on with you diatribe against God. Is that so your worldview doesn't get destroyed? That you're able to keep your worldview despite the grievous errors?

As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science. There may be some Christians such as Christian scientists who believe that. That isn't creation science though.

I'll begin this reply by addressing a comment in your last paragraph. You wrote: "As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science".

We agree. Religious fundamentalists do not perform research or experimentation because you have a bias that rejects anything that disagrees with your preconceived notions.

We know with certainty that creationism cannot survive the process of debate/scientific testing/peer review that the relevant scientific community must pass. What we're left with on the creationism side is fraudulent Discovery Institute green-screen labs, phony creationist "journals" and appeals to supernaturalism.

Let's see the creationists do real science. Let's see them present their young earth and "the fosill record is a conspiracy", loons before the relevant community of scientists, especially those in geology/paleontology, biology, and physics, to defend their claims. But, again, the religious fundamentalists who represent the creationists refuse to step up to the plate and perform the scientific experiments or publish in mainstream peer-review scientific journals to support their claims to supernaturalism. Instead, ID/creationism/religious fundie advocates try to manipulate the legal and political process to sidestep the scientific peer review process. And of course they must because scientific ideas have to earn their way to a scientific consensus by way of repeatable results, peer review, etc., which is what creationists cannot do.

As to your "warning", The notion that one can communicate with the gods and spirit worlds is commonplace among religionists. I suppose they feel they are in a unique position to intercede and exert influence upon a deity from whom they seek a favor? In short, influence peddling.

More do the point, The only "condemning aspect" of my life is the christian based idea that as an imperfect being I am evil and base and I deserve Hell by default. I'm fairly honest, I work hard, I love my friends and family, etc.-- in short, I'm your average person who lives a quiet life dealing with life's challenges. I cannot imagine rating eternal torment because I don't acquiesce to the Christian defined salvation program. I ask myself: "Which is more likely": That there's really this angry god out there who would actually behave that way, or it's really in the religion’s interest to establish a social dynamic where the threat of eternal torment is the outcome for not joining in that religion and btw supporting it financially. What's more likely, man needs a savior for being human, or the religion, an entity of sweeping power for more than a thousand years, needs to convince me I need them and only them?".

 

[fncceo]

Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die?

No, what is really strange is people who believe in a life hereafter, where all their 'worthy' friends and family will be there with them, spend so much money on monuments when they're buried. If they're going to be seeing you in a few years anyway.

 

[RWS]

it will cost you severely after you die.

I'm not taking my Visa card with me when I'm gone.

They only take American Express in heaven... No credit limits once you get to nirvana!

Better apply now!

 

[RWS]

You don't want to get to heaven with a 5k credit limit... jus sayin
That was hilarious fncceo!

 

[RWS]

To settle this argument,

it will cost you severely after you die.

I'm not taking my Visa card with me when I'm gone.

You have to leave your Visa card and all the things you bought behind. Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die? That said, there is more to life than that if you believe in Jesus and creation science. God reveals himself and then one starts to understand creation science is greater that evolution and evolutionary thinking. It's true science vs false science.

But your religion wants our money now, while alive. I'm constantly getting asked to donate to a religion that has more money than I can possibly conceive. Why would it be different later?

Did they suddenly make enough when I die? Or are they still gonna be hounding me for more?

Will I have to face God and apologize that I cannot pay the Heaven rent? And get sent elsewhere?

God is supposedly in control of everything. But like Carlin said... He seems to have a lot of trouble with money...

 

[james bond]

It's not threats nor intimidation. It's not I who is angry but God from you not believing in sacrificing his only son for you. I am only warning you as that is the opposite of temptation given to you by Satan regarding beliefs in evolution and not believing in sin and objective moral values. God provides ample warnings when one's thinking goes off the rails.

Atheist scientists and atheists have some weird false beliefs that betray them such as not believing in God, the supernatural and his word the Bible. They also believe in false science of evolution and evolutionary thinking. The closest thing I could agree with evo is natural selection and being against gmo foods.

So far, you have not been able to show any observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, nor experimental evidence of evolution. The long times of the evolution based on radiometric times have questionable assumptions. So does the philosophy (religion) of uniformitarianism. If uniformitarianism is true, then there would be on need to start putting in the philosophy of catastrophism. The creation scientists do not mix any uniformitarian philosophies with catastrophism. Even the threat of an asteroid(s) hitting the earth follows creation science. The mountain of evidence for evolution has been reduced to rubble.

You did provide arguments, more than the usual low brow atheists and evos here. However, I provided rebuttals and counter-arguments. Yet, you continue to ramble on with you diatribe against God. Is that so your worldview doesn't get destroyed? That you're able to keep your worldview despite the grievous errors?

As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science. There may be some Christians such as Christian scientists who believe that. That isn't creation science though.

I'll begin this reply by addressing a comment in your last paragraph. You wrote: "As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science".

We agree. Religious fundamentalists do not perform research or experimentation because you have a bias that rejects anything that disagrees with your preconceived notions.

We know with certainty that creationism cannot survive the process of debate/scientific testing/peer review that the relevant scientific community must pass. What we're left with on the creationism side is fraudulent Discovery Institute green-screen labs, phony creationist "journals" and appeals to supernaturalism.

Let's see the creationists do real science. Let's see them present their young earth and "the fosill record is a conspiracy", loons before the relevant community of scientists, especially those in geology/paleontology, biology, and physics, to defend their claims. But, again, the religious fundamentalists who represent the creationists refuse to step up to the plate and perform the scientific experiments or publish in mainstream peer-review scientific journals to support their claims to supernaturalism. Instead, ID/creationism/religious fundie advocates try to manipulate the legal and political process to sidestep the scientific peer review process. And of course they must because scientific ideas have to earn their way to a scientific consensus by way of repeatable results, peer review, etc., which is what creationists cannot do.

As to your "warning", The notion that one can communicate with the gods and spirit worlds is commonplace among religionists. I suppose they feel they are in a unique position to intercede and exert influence upon a deity from whom they seek a favor? In short, influence peddling.

More do the point, The only "condemning aspect" of my life is the christian based idea that as an imperfect being I am evil and base and I deserve Hell by default. I'm fairly honest, I work hard, I love my friends and family, etc.-- in short, I'm your average person who lives a quiet life dealing with life's challenges. I cannot imagine rating eternal torment because I don't acquiesce to the Christian defined salvation program. I ask myself: "Which is more likely": That there's really this angry god out there who would actually behave that way, or it's really in the religion’s interest to establish a social dynamic where the threat of eternal torment is the outcome for not joining in that religion and btw supporting it financially. What's more likely, man needs a savior for being human, or the religion, an entity of sweeping power for more than a thousand years, needs to convince me I need them and only them?".

I'll discuss a few of your points below because you have gone looney as I have calmly and successfully rebutted your arguments.

We agree. Religious fundamentalists do not perform research or experimentation because you have a bias that rejects anything that disagrees with your preconceived notions

Wrong, creation scientists do perform research and experiments. We see that they have been done throughout history and Noah's global flood was the accepted geology of the earth in the past. Do you know anything about the history of uniformitarianism? Do you know how it influenced evolution? I don't think you know what you are talking about as atheist science (secular science) has brainwashed you. So right off the bat, your statements are way, way, way wrong.

I was referring to your devious experiment:

Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to “believe”, rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.

It just goes to show how wacko you've become in discussing your wrong worldview of believing monkeys to humans.

Let's go back to uniformitarianism and apply the concept to monkeys. If today's science shows us what the past was like, then why can't we use our observations of today's monkeys to explain how monkeys were in the past? None are bipedal. They are knuckle walkers. All have small cranial capacity. The sclera of their eyes are dark brown, not whilte like humans. None have showed any signs of evolving into an ape-human.

We know with certainty that creationism cannot survive the process of debate/scientific testing/peer review that the relevant scientific community must pass. What we're left with on the creationism side is fraudulent Discovery Institute green-screen labs, phony creationist "journals" and appeals to supernaturalism.

Let's see the creationists do real science. Let's see them present their young earth and "the fosill record is a conspiracy", loons before the relevant community of scientists, especially those in geology/paleontology, biology, and physics, to defend their claims. But, again, the religious fundamentalists who represent the creationists refuse to step up to the plate and perform the scientific experiments or publish in mainstream peer-review scientific journals to support their claims to supernaturalism. Instead, ID/creationism/religious fundie advocates try to manipulate the legal and political process to sidestep the scientific peer review process. And of course they must because scientific ideas have to earn their way to a scientific consensus by way of repeatable results, peer review, etc., which is what creationists cannot do.

We're going way beyond the scope of this thread, but there is the soft tissue and blood evidence of dinosaurs. It shows that dinosaurs were cold blooded like reptiles. We also have found that they could not have evolved the breathing system of birds. Thus, birds from dinosaurs could not have happened. No macroevolution like humans did not evolve from monkeys. We also found that there was fraud committed with feathered dinosaurs a few times already. Your evidence for feathered dinosaurs has been shown to be human-made for profit. If the evidence is everywhere, then why buy stuff from peddlers in China or Myanmar?

Does that cover enough fossil history for you?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I don't believe it. I know if for a fact.

 

[james bond]

Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die?

No, what is really strange is people who believe in a life hereafter, where all their 'worthy' friends and family will be there with them, spend so much money on monuments when they're buried. If they're going to be seeing you in a few years anyway.

I suppose the Christians have the best cemeteries. Rich or poor, you want to show that you believed in Jesus but it's not the tombstone, but what's inside your heart that counts.

Top 10: Britain's famous cemeteries

 

[james bond]

To settle this argument,

it will cost you severely after you die.

I'm not taking my Visa card with me when I'm gone.

You have to leave your Visa card and all the things you bought behind. Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die? That said, there is more to life than that if you believe in Jesus and creation science. God reveals himself and then one starts to understand creation science is greater that evolution and evolutionary thinking. It's true science vs false science.

But your religion wants our money now, while alive. I'm constantly getting asked to donate to a religion that has more money than I can possibly conceive. Why would it be different later?

Did they suddenly make enough when I die? Or are they still gonna be hounding me for more?

Will I have to face God and apologize that I cannot pay the Heaven rent? And get sent elsewhere?

God is supposedly in control of everything. But like Carlin said... He seems to have a lot of trouble with money...

I know fncceo is being facetious, but there's a deeper truth beyond what he intends, too. I enjoy his humor. It's quite good.

Usually, Christian churches ask for 10% of your yearly income as tithing. I have to agree that people are not comfortable with it. They are asked to buy Christian books, too. Some churches are heavier handed than most, but I don't think one has to feel they have to give 10%. I try to do the 10%, but only if I feel comfortable in doing that for the year. Give if you feel comfortable.

What does the Bible say about Christian tithing? Should a Christian tithe?

Are Christians Required to Give 10% of Their Income to the Church? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

There are other worthwhile charities, too, such as Salvation Army.

Yet, your point isn't about giving. It's more atheist criticism of Christians and I think I addressed that above.

Christians believe once a person has committed to Jesus, then they become good trees and good trees bear good fruit. The result is faith + good works as in Book of James. It doesn't mean that good deeds or giving and buying your way into heaven gets one into heaven.

 

[james bond]

The truth is even being a believer may not get one into heaven. Satan doesn't make it easier for believers. We have theistic evolutionists. We also have those who end up going off the righteous path. I think God intended for all of us to be in heaven in the Garden of Eden, but that chance was lost. Jesus' sacrifice gave us all a second chance. I'm not sure whether one gets another chance beyond that such as purgatory. I think Christians have come to the realization that there is no limbo. Purgatory and limbo are places that Catholicism proposed.

None of this came from monkeys. Certainly, one can't get into heaven believing in monkeys .

 

[james bond]

I don't believe it. I know if for a fact.

What creation scientists say are that both atheist scientists and them have the same facts. It's what we conclude from observing the facts that are different. Only one can be right and the other wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And now the voodoo shaman freak bond, who would fail a 7th grade science test and who is calling everyone else "stupid", is threatening everyone who doesn't accept his bronze age fairy tail with eternal damnation.

This is a good example of how we give a pass to idiotic, magical hooha, if it is a "major religion". If Bond the fraud was claiming to speak from the divine authory of his talking houseplants, every single person in this thread would mock him into oblivion and would not bother legitimizing his embarrassing, magical nonsense with counterargument.

Stop legitimizing this blustering idiot.

 

[fncceo]

The truth is even being a believer may not get one into heaven. Satan doesn't make it easier for believers. We have theistic evolutionists. We also have those who end up going off the righteous path. I think God intended for all of us to be in heaven in the Garden of Eden, but that chance was lost. Jesus' sacrifice gave us all a second chance. I'm not sure whether one gets another chance beyond that such as purgatory. I think Christians have come to the realization that there is no limbo. Purgatory and limbo are places that Catholicism proposed.

None of this came from monkeys. Certainly, one can't get into heaven believing in monkeys .

I believe in monkeys. I've seen them.