Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[Hollie]

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

It’s nice that you have chosen to self-congratulate on rebutting my arguments but You should first make an attempt to do that. I noticed you retreated from addressing my comments with regard to prayer, rattling bones, etc. as a cure for disease, when science has provided those cures.

Your refusal to advance any understanding of the methodology within the Scientific Method suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.

So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of “objective reality” has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is “true.”

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.

You’re having some difficulty furthering a consistent argument. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?

You wrote: “As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science".

Yes, I agree. Tests and experiments go against creation science. That's because creation science is not science at all but religious fundamentalism. You're unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as “conjecture” are simply used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism. That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your claims as unsupported.

Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not “encompassed” by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a “true” understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.

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.

Unfortunately. You do typify the result of the ID'iot creationism / fundamentalist Christian cabal. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts. Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

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?

I'm not sure you understand what you're complaining about. You make a great many unsupported assertions and make no attempt to support them. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has every right to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.

Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their own standards religionists must give equal weight to all claims based upon faith as being just as likely true as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.

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.

More unsupported assertions. And, by the way, much of the planet does not believe in your partisan gods. Your polytheistic gods are merely one conception of gods. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary? Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

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.

There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.

You are in need of new conspiracy theories if you insist that biological evolution is just a theory. While you want to believe that Evilutionist scientists are all co-conspirators in some vast conspiracy you envision, you will need something better than paranoia to displace science. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

 

[james bond]

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

It’s nice that you have chosen to self-congratulate on rebutting my arguments but You should first make an attempt to do that. I noticed you retreated from addressing my comments with regard to prayer, rattling bones, etc. as a cure for disease, when science has provided those cures.

Your refusal to advance any understanding of the methodology within the Scientific Method suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.

So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of “objective reality” has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is “true.”

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.

You’re having some difficulty furthering a consistent argument. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?

You wrote: “As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science".

Yes, I agree. Tests and experiments go against creation science. That's because creation science is not science at all but religious fundamentalism. You're unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as “conjecture” are simply used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism. That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your claims as unsupported.

Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not “encompassed” by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a “true” understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.

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.

Unfortunately. You do typify the result of the ID'iot creationism / fundamentalist Christian cabal. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts. Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

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?

I'm not sure you understand what you're complaining about. You make a great many unsupported assertions and make no attempt to support them. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has every right to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.

Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their own standards religionists must give equal weight to all claims based upon faith as being just as likely true as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.

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.

More unsupported assertions. And, by the way, much of the planet does not believe in your partisan gods. Your polytheistic gods are merely one conception of gods. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary? Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

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.

There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.

You are in need of new conspiracy theories if you insist that biological evolution is just a theory. While you want to believe that Evilutionist scientists are all co-conspirators in some vast conspiracy you envision, you will need something better than paranoia to displace science. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

First, you are misstating what I said a second time when I was addressing "your" hypothetical experiment. Thus, I'll claim victory in regards to that argument as you continue to misstate and continue to put words in my mouth.

You also further misstate and try to tie me with ID. I've clearly said I was for creation science and not ID. Thus, I win again.

As for "Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry."

There never was a common ancestor to humans. There never was a common ancestor to monkeys. Let's use what we see today as common ancestors. If you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, then you get a mule. However, that's as far as you can go. The mule had a horse and donkey as ancestors. Furthermore, you still haven't explained how sexual reproduction came about from asexual reproduction.

Moreover, creation scientists do not use "faith." It is the evos who use faith to believe in evolution and evolutionary thinking. Creation scientists use the Bible as hypothesis and that worked fine until Charles Lyell came along.

Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution. Natural selection only applies to microevolution. Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen. I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis. So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.

 

[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 .

I believe in monkeys. I've seen them.

Do you recognize any common ancestors? I don't. My ancestors do not have tails.

 

[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.

Do you recognize any common ancestors? I don't. My ancestors do not have tails.

I'm sure you've been told this before, but apes, monkeys, gibbons, are not common ancestors of humans (according to the Theory of Evolution to which you refer).

If you go back far enough, humans and apes, humans and fish, humans and protozoa, have common ancestors. Some of which did in fact have tails.

 

[Hollie]

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

It’s nice that you have chosen to self-congratulate on rebutting my arguments but You should first make an attempt to do that. I noticed you retreated from addressing my comments with regard to prayer, rattling bones, etc. as a cure for disease, when science has provided those cures.

Your refusal to advance any understanding of the methodology within the Scientific Method suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.

So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of “objective reality” has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is “true.”

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.

You’re having some difficulty furthering a consistent argument. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?

You wrote: “As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science".

Yes, I agree. Tests and experiments go against creation science. That's because creation science is not science at all but religious fundamentalism. You're unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as “conjecture” are simply used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism. That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your claims as unsupported.

Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not “encompassed” by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a “true” understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.

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.

Unfortunately. You do typify the result of the ID'iot creationism / fundamentalist Christian cabal. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts. Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

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?

I'm not sure you understand what you're complaining about. You make a great many unsupported assertions and make no attempt to support them. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has every right to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.

Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their own standards religionists must give equal weight to all claims based upon faith as being just as likely true as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.

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.

More unsupported assertions. And, by the way, much of the planet does not believe in your partisan gods. Your polytheistic gods are merely one conception of gods. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary? Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

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.

There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.

You are in need of new conspiracy theories if you insist that biological evolution is just a theory. While you want to believe that Evilutionist scientists are all co-conspirators in some vast conspiracy you envision, you will need something better than paranoia to displace science. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

First, you are misstating what I said a second time when I was addressing "your" hypothetical experiment. Thus, I'll claim victory in regards to that argument as you continue to misstate and continue to put words in my mouth.

You also further misstate and try to tie me with ID. I've clearly said I was for creation science and not ID. Thus, I win again.

As for "Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry."

There never was a common ancestor to humans. There never was a common ancestor to monkeys. Let's use what we see today as common ancestors. If you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, then you get a mule. However, that's as far as you can go. The mule had a horse and donkey as ancestors. Furthermore, you still haven't explained how sexual reproduction came about from asexual reproduction.

Moreover, creation scientists do not use "faith." It is the evos who use faith to believe in evolution and evolutionary thinking. Creation scientists use the Bible as hypothesis and that worked fine until Charles Lyell came along.

Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution. Natural selection only applies to microevolution. Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen. I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis. So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.

Have you noticed that you are the only individual proclaiming to have “won” an argument you have yet to make?

Your dismissal of evolution is right out of the ID/creationist/supernaturalist playbook. Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe and a very old earth? You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you may believe it to be.

All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.

Once again, to support your extremist position for supernatural intervention you need to:

1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gods, and then,

2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gods had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.

When will you provide such evidence?

 

[Hollie]

Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution. Natural selection only applies to microevolution. Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen. I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis. So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.

Where is the evidence you claim you presented? Provide the exact citation.

Evolution has been destroyed in this thread? Provide the exact citation.

This appears to be another of your self-claimed “victories” that falls short of demonstration.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution has been destroyed in this thread?

Dude, why are you bothering with that hilarious nonsense? Right....evolution was destroyed in this thread, yet still enjoys the support of all the evidence and the entire scientific community....

 

[LittleNipper]

Evolution has been destroyed in this thread?

Dude, why are you bothering with that hilarious nonsense? Right....evolution was destroyed in this thread, yet still enjoys the support of all the evidence and the entire scientific community....

NOT THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, ONLY THOSE THAT ACCEPT EVOLUTION AND EVERYTHING IT STANDS FOR. It's the evolutionists who exclude those who will not bow down to their logic and these are labeled unscientific.There are Creationists who are far more learned than Darwin ever was and yet are scoffed at by men who promote each other on the pretense that they agree with what their professors at some liberal university taught them! Millions of years, billions of years and yet they faint at the speed at which the climate seems to change ---- they cannot comprehend the real implications. They can only blame man because what else can they focus on? They are atheists!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

NOT THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, ONLY THOSE THAT ACCEPT EVOLUTION AND EVERYTHING IT STANDS FOR.

I.E., the entire scientific community. There will never be 100% consensus among all scientists about anything. Evolution is as much a fact as a fact can be, as far as scientific knowledge goes.

 

[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...

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.

But if God is all-powerful, and Jesus is too, why do they need people to raise money?

They can create it themselves, in whatever means necessary. "Poof! There's some gold bars for you!"

What happens, in the current system, is that corrupt people keep most of the money being raised by well-wishing people, in whatever form they donate to the Church.

Some of it surely goes back to altruistic intentions, to keep people giving. And I understand that a lot of it goes towards maintenance. But most of it disappears into corrupt coffers, or stashed away in some hidden Vatican fund.

My point is, with the vast amount of money and volunteer work that is donated by Christians, that should cover maintenance, and also stop people from starving and suffering in this world.

But then, if they stop the starvation and suffering, it will be hard to generate more money without conquering... It's catch-22.

But an altruistic religion, with almost unlimited funds, and a righteous God that can make money appear from thin air, should stop all world suffering first, and worry about followers later.

That..... would get me to follow a religion.

 

[RWS]

Until then, it's a money-making and army-making scheme, that fools the people into following and contributing.

 

[LittleNipper]

NOT THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, ONLY THOSE THAT ACCEPT EVOLUTION AND EVERYTHING IT STANDS FOR.

I.E., the entire scientific community. There will never be 100% consensus among all scientists about anything. Evolution is as much a fact as a fact can be, as far as scientific knowledge goes.

And the fact of GOD is as much a fact as a fact can be, as far as the personal experience of salvation go.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And the fact of GOD is as much a fact as a fact can be, as far as the personal experience of salvation go

You just described precisely why it is not a fact and is supported by zero evidence.

Hint: if it is only evidence to you, personally, that is precisely why it is not evidence.

 

[LittleNipper]

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.

But if God is all-powerful, and Jesus is too, why do they need people to raise money?

They can create it themselves, in whatever means necessary. "Poof! There's some gold bars for you!"

What happens, in the current system, is that corrupt people keep most of the money being raised by well-wishing people, in whatever form they donate to the Church.

Some of it surely goes back to altruistic intentions, to keep people giving. And I understand that a lot of it goes towards maintenance. But most of it disappears into corrupt coffers, or stashed away in some hidden Vatican fund.

My point is, with the vast amount of money and volunteer work that is donated by Christians, that should cover maintenance, and also stop people from starving and suffering in this world.

But then, if they stop the starvation and suffering, it will be hard to generate more money without conquering... It's catch-22.

But an altruistic religion, with almost unlimited funds, and a righteous God that can make money appear from thin air, should stop all world suffering first, and worry about followers later.

That..... would get me to follow a religion.

Man is participating in GOD's work and gets to witness GOD working through such experiences. And honestly, I regard the Roman Catholic church as self servicing. I do not consider the pope as the head of Christ's CHURCH. And this is why the Reformation happened. That was the Holy Spirit shaking up and reviving His CHURCH. The separation of the sheep from the goats.

The suffering of the world is the direct result of man's choice to separate themselves from the love of GOD. The more people feel secure in their own lifestyles and creature comforts the more they rely on their own devices. That is human nature and it historically happens over and over again. The prosperity of the 1890's lead to the humanistic world views that propelled Germany and the world into the GREAT WORLD WAR. The prosperity of the 20's lead to the despair of the 30's and World War II. The prosperity of the 50's and 60's lead to the drug and sex induced despair of the 70's and the manipulated energy crisis...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Man is participating in GOD's work and gets to witness GOD working through such experiences.

Fascinating.... Then why don't you simply accept this as the case and accept evolution as fact? And look at it as witness in God's work, just like you do all the rest of science.

 

[LittleNipper]

Man is participating in GOD's work and gets to witness GOD working through such experiences.

Fascinating.... Then why don't you simply accept this as the case and accept evolution as fact? And look at it as witness in God's work, just like you do all the rest of science.

Because evolution is the attempt to circumvent the CREATOR and propose a way for man to develop "naturally". Of course there are technical advancements and there were times when such advancements became lost in the past. I fully believe that there were kinds of animals and that these became selectively transformed into the various breeds and races we see today. However, every kind remains held within the strict bounds of its created limitations.

 

[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 .

I believe in monkeys. I've seen them.

Do you recognize any common ancestors? I don't. My ancestors do not have tails.

I'm sure you've been told this before, but apes, monkeys, gibbons, are not common ancestors of humans (according to the Theory of Evolution to which you refer).

If you go back far enough, humans and apes, humans and fish, humans and protozoa, have common ancestors. Some of which did in fact have tails.

Tell me where your pic of monkeys come in then. In all of these charts, it shows the same monkeys we see today in the distant past (uniformitarian thinking?). Below are three common ancestor trees you can use. Yet, when I use today's monkeys, I'm told they aren't the same as in the past. It's a one-sided argument or cherry picking fallacy.

How about this one? It's really a joke, so people should be laughing.

 

[james bond]

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

It’s nice that you have chosen to self-congratulate on rebutting my arguments but You should first make an attempt to do that. I noticed you retreated from addressing my comments with regard to prayer, rattling bones, etc. as a cure for disease, when science has provided those cures.

Your refusal to advance any understanding of the methodology within the Scientific Method suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.

So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of “objective reality” has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is “true.”

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.

You’re having some difficulty furthering a consistent argument. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?

You wrote: “As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science".

Yes, I agree. Tests and experiments go against creation science. That's because creation science is not science at all but religious fundamentalism. You're unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as “conjecture” are simply used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism. That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your claims as unsupported.

Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not “encompassed” by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a “true” understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.

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.

Unfortunately. You do typify the result of the ID'iot creationism / fundamentalist Christian cabal. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts. Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

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?

I'm not sure you understand what you're complaining about. You make a great many unsupported assertions and make no attempt to support them. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has every right to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.

Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their own standards religionists must give equal weight to all claims based upon faith as being just as likely true as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.

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.

More unsupported assertions. And, by the way, much of the planet does not believe in your partisan gods. Your polytheistic gods are merely one conception of gods. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary? Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

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.

There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.

You are in need of new conspiracy theories if you insist that biological evolution is just a theory. While you want to believe that Evilutionist scientists are all co-conspirators in some vast conspiracy you envision, you will need something better than paranoia to displace science. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

First, you are misstating what I said a second time when I was addressing "your" hypothetical experiment. Thus, I'll claim victory in regards to that argument as you continue to misstate and continue to put words in my mouth.

You also further misstate and try to tie me with ID. I've clearly said I was for creation science and not ID. Thus, I win again.

As for "Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry."

There never was a common ancestor to humans. There never was a common ancestor to monkeys. Let's use what we see today as common ancestors. If you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, then you get a mule. However, that's as far as you can go. The mule had a horse and donkey as ancestors. Furthermore, you still haven't explained how sexual reproduction came about from asexual reproduction.

Moreover, creation scientists do not use "faith." It is the evos who use faith to believe in evolution and evolutionary thinking. Creation scientists use the Bible as hypothesis and that worked fine until Charles Lyell came along.

Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution. Natural selection only applies to microevolution. Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen. I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis. So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.

Have you noticed that you are the only individual proclaiming to have “won” an argument you have yet to make?

Your dismissal of evolution is right out of the ID/creationist/supernaturalist playbook. Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe and a very old earth? You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you may believe it to be.

All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.

Once again, to support your extremist position for supernatural intervention you need to:

1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gods, and then,

2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gods had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.

When will you provide such evidence?

There really isn't much point in discussing further because as I said before you have gone looney tunes and off the topic of discussion. I was nice and discussed and presented my rebuttals and arguments to you. However, you continue to misconstrue what I've said and paint me in a negative light. You put words in my mouth that I didn't say. On top of that, you continue the same line of assertions and ad hominems instead of addressing anything I said.

The question is when will you provide the evidence for monkeys to humans? Do you know what you are talking about?

 

[Hollie]

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

It’s nice that you have chosen to self-congratulate on rebutting my arguments but You should first make an attempt to do that. I noticed you retreated from addressing my comments with regard to prayer, rattling bones, etc. as a cure for disease, when science has provided those cures.

Your refusal to advance any understanding of the methodology within the Scientific Method suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.

So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of “objective reality” has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is “true.”

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.

You’re having some difficulty furthering a consistent argument. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?

You wrote: “As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science".

Yes, I agree. Tests and experiments go against creation science. That's because creation science is not science at all but religious fundamentalism. You're unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as “conjecture” are simply used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism. That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your claims as unsupported.

Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not “encompassed” by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a “true” understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.

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.

Unfortunately. You do typify the result of the ID'iot creationism / fundamentalist Christian cabal. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts. Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

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?

I'm not sure you understand what you're complaining about. You make a great many unsupported assertions and make no attempt to support them. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has every right to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.

Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their own standards religionists must give equal weight to all claims based upon faith as being just as likely true as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.

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.

More unsupported assertions. And, by the way, much of the planet does not believe in your partisan gods. Your polytheistic gods are merely one conception of gods. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary? Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

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.

There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.

You are in need of new conspiracy theories if you insist that biological evolution is just a theory. While you want to believe that Evilutionist scientists are all co-conspirators in some vast conspiracy you envision, you will need something better than paranoia to displace science. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

First, you are misstating what I said a second time when I was addressing "your" hypothetical experiment. Thus, I'll claim victory in regards to that argument as you continue to misstate and continue to put words in my mouth.

You also further misstate and try to tie me with ID. I've clearly said I was for creation science and not ID. Thus, I win again.

As for "Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry."

There never was a common ancestor to humans. There never was a common ancestor to monkeys. Let's use what we see today as common ancestors. If you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, then you get a mule. However, that's as far as you can go. The mule had a horse and donkey as ancestors. Furthermore, you still haven't explained how sexual reproduction came about from asexual reproduction.

Moreover, creation scientists do not use "faith." It is the evos who use faith to believe in evolution and evolutionary thinking. Creation scientists use the Bible as hypothesis and that worked fine until Charles Lyell came along.

Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution. Natural selection only applies to microevolution. Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen. I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis. So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.

Have you noticed that you are the only individual proclaiming to have “won” an argument you have yet to make?

Your dismissal of evolution is right out of the ID/creationist/supernaturalist playbook. Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe and a very old earth? You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you may believe it to be.

All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.

Once again, to support your extremist position for supernatural intervention you need to:

1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gods, and then,

2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gods had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.

When will you provide such evidence?

There really isn't much point in discussing further because as I said before you have gone looney tunes and off the topic of discussion. I was nice and discussed and presented my rebuttals and arguments to you. However, you continue to misconstrue what I've said and paint me in a negative light. You put words in my mouth that I didn't say. On top of that, you continue the same line of assertions and ad hominems instead of addressing anything I said.

The question is when will you provide the evidence for monkeys to humans? Do you know what you are talking about?

There is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science. That you continue with such nonsense displays an appalling lack of knowledge and willful ignorance on your part.

Unfortunately, you have chosen to simply repeat the slogans and misinformation furthered by the most notorious fundamentalist ministries,

 

[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.

But if God is all-powerful, and Jesus is too, why do they need people to raise money?

They can create it themselves, in whatever means necessary. "Poof! There's some gold bars for you!"

What happens, in the current system, is that corrupt people keep most of the money being raised by well-wishing people, in whatever form they donate to the Church.

Some of it surely goes back to altruistic intentions, to keep people giving. And I understand that a lot of it goes towards maintenance. But most of it disappears into corrupt coffers, or stashed away in some hidden Vatican fund.

My point is, with the vast amount of money and volunteer work that is donated by Christians, that should cover maintenance, and also stop people from starving and suffering in this world.

But then, if they stop the starvation and suffering, it will be hard to generate more money without conquering... It's catch-22.

But an altruistic religion, with almost unlimited funds, and a righteous God that can make money appear from thin air, should stop all world suffering first, and worry about followers later.

That..... would get me to follow a religion.

I guess you missed the part where Adam sinned or else we'd all be living in paradise. It's like I'm talking with a rock.