Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution

[james bond]

Science is one vast, global conspiracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I get it. Your feelings are hurt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

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

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

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

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

LOL

Clueless

Totally, completely clueless.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

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

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

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

That's just so random!

 

[abu afak]

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

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

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

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

That's just so random!

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

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

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

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

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

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

`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

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

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

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

That's just so random!

Your constant fallacy is argument from Ignorance or Incredulity.

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

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

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

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

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

`

I just explained the math to you!

I literally just laid it out for you!!!

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

They would have to randomly collide 250,000 times A SECOND for them to beat the odds and randomly form a cell

 

[abu afak]

I just explained the math to you!

I literally just laid it out for you!!!

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

They would have to randomly collide 250,000 times A SECOND for them to beat the odds and randomly form a cell

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I just explained the math to you!

I literally just laid it out for you!!!

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

They would have to randomly collide 250,000 times A SECOND for them to beat the odds and randomly form a cell

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

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

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

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

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

LOL

Clueless

Totally, completely clueless.

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

 

[Hollie]

Science is one vast, global conspiracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I get it. Your feelings are hurt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Hollie]

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

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

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

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

That's just so random!

Your constant fallacy is argument from Ignorance or Incredulity.

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

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

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

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

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

`

I just explained the math to you!

I literally just laid it out for you!!!

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

They would have to randomly collide 250,000 times A SECOND for them to beat the odds and randomly form a cell

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

 

[abu afak]

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

You have no idea what you're talking about.

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

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

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

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

 

[james bond]

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

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

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

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

 

[james bond]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[abu afak]

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

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

That article is pure BS.

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

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

There is NO GOD IN EVIDENCE and SCIENCE DEMANDS EVIDENCE.

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

`

 

[Hollie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[james bond]

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

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

That article is pure BS.

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

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

There is NO GOD IN EVIDENCE and SCIENCE DEMANDS EVIDENCE.

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

`

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

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

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

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

 

[james bond]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[james bond]

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

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

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

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

LOL

Clueless

Totally, completely clueless.

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

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

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