Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[PostmodernProph]

What do you think the definition of rationality is that makes the above statement false?

/boggle.....please read the post you have quoted for the answer to your question.....

I'm asking for your definition of rationality. That is not in your post.

????....you can't figure it out from the definition of irrationality?......

 

[THE LIGHT]

Okay so you're engaging in some sort of anti-science, anti-evidence, anti-intellectual, anti-reason nihilism that simply rejects the principle that human beings have any ability to draw logical conclusions from the observable reality around them.

That's madness. Literally.

I never said I rejected science. That is your presupposition. I like science but despise pseudo-science. I don't like all those fake drawings, fairy tales, and anthropological hoaxes in attempt to make people think that there is actually some science to evolutionism. I just don't have the faith you do to believe in evolutionism.

According to evolution, you must believe that you came from a rock and that your brain is nothing more than a sack of chemicals. Therefore if macro-evolution were true (which it is not), you would not be able to trust your conclusions.

If you were a creature that was intelligently designed by a Creator with the purpose then you would be able to live, breath, eat, feel, touch smell, have emotions, design, think, observe, create, and process logical computations. Let's see, is that the case??? Yep, it sure is. Another piece of evidence in favor of the Creationist view point.

Okay, your conclusions don't line up with the rest of logical thinking humanity which believes in Creation, but that is because you willfully reject reality as Peter says in 2 Peter 3:5 and Paul states in Romans 1:20-21. Once again you serve as yet another empirical data point proving the pinpoint accuracy of the Bible if that is what you seek.

The fact that many people believe in creationism is not scientific support for creationism having occurred.

Your belief is reliant on the fundamentally implausible assumption that the earth's living creatures appeared suddenly, fully formed, out of nowhere, in an instant.

There is no evidence for that whatsoever. To call that a scientific theory is to embrace pseudo-science at its worst.

The only evidence we have is of fully formed creatures that adapt to their surroundings giving rise to minor changes over time. This is what is found in nature and what is also stated in the Bible and the position held by Creation Scientists. There is no such thing as macro-evolution. Evolutionism is a fairytale at best. Regardless of the truth, some people still cling to evolutionism as much as they cling to Santa.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Prove to me that the bible isn't just myths, but without simply quoting it.

No one has proved to you that you evolved from a banana or a rock, yet you believe in evolutionism. You just simply believe in evolutionism because you want to. It gives you a convenient excuse to continue living a sinful lifestyle. In fact, you and millions of other humans are performing a validation of the Bible each day.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(Romans 1:20)

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
(Romans 1:25)

You see, in science, you have a hypothesis which provides your statement of what you think is true. From that you test that hypothesis to see if it is indeed true or not. Therefore, one must quote the Bible, because the Bible provides the framework for the hypothesis.

Prophetically, the Bible has met every prophecy it has made with pinpoint accuracy.

Historically, the Bible is the most scrutinized book in history and yet it continues to prove itself correct time and time again. Why do you think the Muslims stopped the Jews from archeological digs around the temple mount.

Scientifically, the Bible states that there are paths to the sea (Psalm 8) and sure enough this is true. The Bible also states that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11). Up until ~120 years ago, the practice of "blood letting" was considered "science" and as a result, many people died. The Bible states in Leviticus 15:13 "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean." It was not until years after the death of Ignaz Semmelweis that the medical world would accept the concept set forth by the Bible. Sadly, Mr. Ignaz Semmelweis was committed to an insane asylum after trying so hard to prove to the "scientific community" of proper hand washing procedures. Despite the overwhelming evidence, the doctors refused to accept his recommended practices which were found to cut the death rate from 30% to 1%. Got to love the "scientific community" which is far from open minded. Jonah 2:6 speaks of mountains on the ocean's floor yet it was not until recently that "modern science" discovered this to be true. In Genesis 17:12, Moses conveys God's instruction for every man child to be circumcised at eight days old. According to medical science, the eight day is the only day in a humans life that the prothrombin is above 100%. Moses certainly didn't learn this from the secular Egyptian "scientists".

I could go on and on, but it is not proof that you need. The "scientists" in Semmelweis' day had plenty of proof. They just were "offended" at the truth and found it highly inconvenient at the cost of tremendous human life. What you need is a change of heart.

But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
(John 20:24-29)

You do realize that a story in a book whose veracity cannot be proven is not either scientific fact or theory, don't you?

'Because it's in the Bible' is not substantive support for an argument.

 

[konradv]

The only evidence we have is of fully formed creatures that adapt to their surroundings giving rise to minor changes over time. This is what is found in nature and what is also stated in the Bible and the position held by Creation Scientists. There is no such thing as macro-evolution. Evolutionism is a fairytale at best. Regardless of the truth, some people still cling to evolutionism as much as they cling to Santa.

I'll believe that when you can adequately explain the fossil record. It clearly shows increasing complexity and change over time. That alone precludes creation as set forth in the Bible and does nothing to prove Intelligent Design beyond the way the general laws of science are laid out to allow evolution to occur.

 

[alang1216]

Prophetically, the Bible has met every prophecy it has made with pinpoint accuracy.

The Bible was written down decades after the prophecies were "fulfilled" with the goal of showing how Jesus fulfilled them. With that kind of arrangement anyone could be an accurate prophet. A prime example is a birth narrative, convoluted to bring Jesus to Bethlehem, birthplace of King David, based on a census. Bizare

 

[konradv]

Prophetically, the Bible has met every prophecy it has made with pinpoint accuracy.

The Bible was written down decades after the prophecies were "fulfilled" with the goal of showing how Jesus fulfilled them. With that kind of arrangement anyone could be an accurate prophet. A prime example is a birth narrative, convoluted to bring Jesus to Bethlehem, birthplace of King David, based on a census. Bizare

A Roman census that no one can verify, despite the fact that they kept good records!!!

 

[PratchettFan]

Hardly. There is a very big difference between believing in something for which there is no evidence, and not believing in something for which there is no evidence.

Back to what I mentioned. Is it equally rational to believe that man cannot fly like a bird and to believe that man can fly like a bird?

I can show you a human being. I can give all of his measurements and you can use that objective evidence to arrive at valid conclusions as to his ability to flap his arms and fly. Show me your evidence about God.

If you define an Atheist as someone who lacks beliefs about God, then you are not an Atheist.

As some atheist put it, it's not for theists to define what atheists are. An atheist is quite simply someone who does not include God on the list of things he believes in. That is not a belief system.

An atheist does not have to produce an argument for why he doesn't believe in God beyond simply pointing out that there is no actual tangible evidence for the existence of God.

Why atheists are so reviled for not believing in God is not their fault. If an atheist believes in no God, and a Christian believes in one, why would the Christian have the high ground by any measure?

What of the religions that believe in many gods? Should they revile Christians for being selective believers,

while denying the existence of the other gods of those other religions?

I'm not defining what an Atheist is. I am just saying that you don't meet your definition.

To use your analogy, just because you define a human being as an animal which can flap its arms and fly does not mean you can do it. If just means your definition is wrong.

 

[alang1216]

Prophetically, the Bible has met every prophecy it has made with pinpoint accuracy.

The Bible was written down decades after the prophecies were "fulfilled" with the goal of showing how Jesus fulfilled them. With that kind of arrangement anyone could be an accurate prophet. A prime example is a birth narrative, convoluted to bring Jesus to Bethlehem, birthplace of King David, based on a census. Bizare

A Roman census that no one can verify, despite the fact that they kept good records!!!

Where would you go if you had to go to the home of your family 1,000 years before? How many generations lived in those 1,000 years and which of your ancestors would you consider the home and go to?

 

[PostmodernProph]

It clearly shows......

that is your profession of faith.....

 

[konradv]

It clearly shows......

that is your profession of faith.....

You're confusing faith with deductive logic. I'm NOT just taking someone's word, I'm using my brain to examine the evidence. If that's not a way to truth, IMO, you're saying God lies to us and we cannot believe the evidence of our senses.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Proven to the satisfaction of the vast majority of those scientists that have studied it.

Because they accept it with blind faith.

Are you implying that you've looked at both sides of the issue and made a rational decision? I suspect you are just accusing your foes of doing exactly what you do.

Either way it's an easy accusation to make but hard to prove. Do you have any evidence to share or are you blithely violating the commandment against bearing false witness?

I am stating that those believing in evolutionism are doing so in blind faith. There is no evidence that evolutionism is true. Evolutionism is like any other other religious cult. Those high up in the ranks are just playing the shell game because they know they don't have the truth, while the underlings blindly accept what the "scientists" present them without verifying it for themselves or are just too afraid to point out that the king is indeed naked.

 

[THE LIGHT]

It clearly shows......

that is your profession of faith.....

You're confusing faith with deductive logic. I'm NOT just taking someone's word, I'm using my brain to examine the evidence. If that's not a way to truth, IMO, you're saying God lies to us and we cannot believe the evidence of our senses.

What evidence are you basing your observation on and what conclusions are you drawing from that evidence? Could you please list them out for me.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Prophetically, the Bible has met every prophecy it has made with pinpoint accuracy.

The Bible was written down decades after the prophecies were "fulfilled" with the goal of showing how Jesus fulfilled them. With that kind of arrangement anyone could be an accurate prophet.

You are proving that you don't attempt to verify what the Bible says for yourself, but rather look for any anti-Biblical literature that you can find in order to fuel your rejection of God so that you can continue to live your life the way you want to.

So which one is it. The Bible is accurate because it was written after the fact or it is inaccurate because it is an old book. Make up your mind. It cannot be both if you are using any bit of logic.

The Four gospels are written with a hepatic structure and unique word structure such that modern day computers would struggle to interwoven complexity seen within the Gospels.

A prime example is a birth narrative, convoluted to bring Jesus to Bethlehem, birthplace of King David, based on a census. Bizare

And your point with this is???

 

[THE LIGHT]

The only evidence we have is of fully formed creatures that adapt to their surroundings giving rise to minor changes over time. This is what is found in nature and what is also stated in the Bible and the position held by Creation Scientists. There is no such thing as macro-evolution. Evolutionism is a fairytale at best. Regardless of the truth, some people still cling to evolutionism as much as they cling to Santa.

I'll believe that when you can adequately explain the fossil record. It clearly shows increasing complexity and change over time. That alone precludes creation as set forth in the Bible and does nothing to prove Intelligent Design beyond the way the general laws of science are laid out to allow evolution to occur.

Or things such as trees spanning vertically through millions of years worth of layers.

 

[HUGGY]

Because they accept it with blind faith.

Are you implying that you've looked at both sides of the issue and made a rational decision? I suspect you are just accusing your foes of doing exactly what you do.

Either way it's an easy accusation to make but hard to prove. Do you have any evidence to share or are you blithely violating the commandment against bearing false witness?

I am stating that those believing in evolutionism are doing so in blind faith. There is no evidence that evolutionism is true. Evolutionism is like any other other religious cult. Those high up in the ranks are just playing the shell game because they know they don't have the truth, while the underlings blindly accept what the "scientists" present them without verifying it for themselves or are just too afraid to point out that the king is indeed naked.

Relentless in your willfull ignorance.

Natural selection is a fact. There is no such thing as "evolutionism". You guys just make things/definitions up as you go along attempting to define that which you are too ignorant to absorb as the work of the devil or similar such nonsense.

Christianity is a house of cards. One false premis piled upon another. You made up a god then made up god's words and backed the idea/scam with false witnesses.

 

[konradv]

that is your profession of faith.....

You're confusing faith with deductive logic. I'm NOT just taking someone's word, I'm using my brain to examine the evidence. If that's not a way to truth, IMO, you're saying God lies to us and we cannot believe the evidence of our senses.

What evidence are you basing your observation on and what conclusions are you drawing from that evidence? Could you please list them out for me.

DNA and fossils, you know, the evidence you ignore and pretend doesn't exist. IMO, it's blasphemous that you would treat the brain God gave you that way. He may be the Creator, but evolution is the agency of His creation. Beyond "let there be light"(The Big Bang), Genesis is an allegory written down by men who didn't understand the intricacies of science that we do today.

 

[konradv]

The only evidence we have is of fully formed creatures that adapt to their surroundings giving rise to minor changes over time. This is what is found in nature and what is also stated in the Bible and the position held by Creation Scientists. There is no such thing as macro-evolution. Evolutionism is a fairytale at best. Regardless of the truth, some people still cling to evolutionism as much as they cling to Santa.

I'll believe that when you can adequately explain the fossil record. It clearly shows increasing complexity and change over time. That alone precludes creation as set forth in the Bible and does nothing to prove Intelligent Design beyond the way the general laws of science are laid out to allow evolution to occur.

Or things such as trees spanning vertically through millions of years worth of layers.

Please explain what that's supposed to mean. As far as I know, trees don't live millions of years. If that's not what you mean, you need to be more precise with your argument. Just because you don't believe the science, doesn't mean that I won't demand your thesis employ scientific precision.

 

[alang1216]

Vestigiality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because they accept it with blind faith.

Are you implying that you've looked at both sides of the issue and made a rational decision? I suspect you are just accusing your foes of doing exactly what you do.

Either way it's an easy accusation to make but hard to prove. Do you have any evidence to share or are you blithely violating the commandment against bearing false witness?

I am stating that those believing in evolutionism are doing so in blind faith. There is no evidence that evolutionism is true. Evolutionism is like any other other religious cult. Those high up in the ranks are just playing the shell game because they know they don't have the truth, while the underlings blindly accept what the "scientists" present them without verifying it for themselves or are just too afraid to point out that the king is indeed naked.

NO EVIDENCE!!! There is a boatload of evidence from biology and geology. You may not find it convincing because you refuse verify it for yourself and blindly accept what you've been told about science by non-scientists.

Verify this evidence for yourself: Vestigiality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[alang1216]

Prophetically, the Bible has met every prophecy it has made with pinpoint accuracy.

The Bible was written down decades after the prophecies were "fulfilled" with the goal of showing how Jesus fulfilled them. With that kind of arrangement anyone could be an accurate prophet.

You are proving that you don't attempt to verify what the Bible says for yourself, but rather look for any anti-Biblical literature that you can find in order to fuel your rejection of God so that you can continue to live your life the way you want to.

So which one is it. The Bible is accurate because it was written after the fact or it is inaccurate because it is an old book. Make up your mind. It cannot be both if you are using any bit of logic.

I have read and studied it and believe that to call the Bible either accurate or inaccurate is to fundamentally misunderstand it. It is a work of theology compiled from the work of many authors over millenia. The prophesies fulfilled were an attempt to link the old and new testaments through the life of Jesus. It didn't matter to the NT writers that these were not true history, very little history of Jesus' life is known, it only mattered that a theological case be make to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.

 

[alang1216]

I'll believe that when you can adequately explain the fossil record. It clearly shows increasing complexity and change over time. That alone precludes creation as set forth in the Bible and does nothing to prove Intelligent Design beyond the way the general laws of science are laid out to allow evolution to occur.

Or things such as trees spanning vertically through millions of years worth of layers.

Please explain what that's supposed to mean. As far as I know, trees don't live millions of years. If that's not what you mean, you need to be more precise with your argument. Just because you don't believe the science, doesn't mean that I won't demand your thesis employ scientific precision.

I suspect he refers to fossilized trees that have remained vertical. The explainatin is simple really, trees put down roots into soil and rock layers that are already there. If they're millions of years old the tree is found within a very old layer. If the trees are buried in a flood they might remain vertical and be covered by younger layers. No mystery really unless you're looking for anything to show evolution is false.