A Disproof of Evolution Disprovers

[ecco]

Example: Your God flooded the entire world, covering the highest mountains. According to your Bible, this happened about 4000 years ago. That is demonstrably wrong.

Yep. Which makes the Bible wrong. Which makes the Bible worthless for proving or disproving god.

The Bible (OT) is the story that created the Hebrew/Christian God. If the stories are disproved, the God is disproved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you but your own words said thar some scientists might call a certain animal and other might not. That sounds like it is not very accurate.

No, it is very accurate. The problem is that some people do not know how to apply the sciences properly and then blame others for their own lacks.

 

[Heyo]

The Bible (OT) is the story that created the Hebrew/Christian God. If the stories are disproved, the God is disproved.

I think it is consensus among historians that Genesis is a late transscript of earlier aural traditions. So, not the establishing document.

 

[ecco]

I think it is consensus among historians that Genesis is a late transscript of earlier aural traditions. So, not the establishing document.

Of course, it was based on earlier oral traditions. That is partially true because writing was a fairly recent invention. Also, all religions borrow from other religions because they want to attract followers of other religions. Nevertheless, the Genesis stories were the ones that created this version of a God.

 

[ecco]

Somewhere in history there was an animal that could be called a kangaroo and it was the first one that could be called that.

I think I have come to understand your view of evolution that would lead you to believe in a FIRST somethingorother.

Your View:
At one point in time, there was a species of animals that would have been called (had there been people to name them) StinkaDoos. StinkaDoos looked somewhat like modern kangaroos but they had very rounded ears. Also, their forearms were much longer than those of modern kangaroos. Finally, instead of one pouch, they had two pouches, one each where upright mammals' breasts would be.

In your view, a male and a female StinkaDoo had sex and out popped, lo and behold, the first-ever kangaroo. Not too far away, two other StinkaDoos had sex and gave birth to the second-ever kangaroo. Years later the two Roos mated giving rise to all the kangaroos we see today.

So, tell me, @lostwanderingsoul, is that your view of evolution?

 

[McBell]

The Bible (OT) is the story that created the Hebrew/Christian God. If the stories are disproved, the God is disproved.

It does not work that way.
All disproving the stories does is disprove the stories.

Or are you going to say that disproving Santa Claus flies the world over in one night giving out gifts disproves Saint Nicholas existed?

 

[ecco]

Or are you going to say that disproving Santa Claus flies the world over in one night giving out gifts disproves Saint Nicholas existed?

If you need to try to stretch Santa Claus to St. Nicholas, you have lost the argument.

There are books about Santa Clause.
There are books about St. Nicholas.

If the stories about Santa Claus can be shown to be wrong, (a sleigh drawn by reindeer landing on millions of rooftops) then one can conclude Santa Clause is fiction.

Just because one can conclude that Santa Claus is fiction is not a reason to conclude that St. Nicholas is fiction.

Your analogy is about two sets of stories about two different "people".

The Bible is one set of stories about one god. Like with the stories about Santa, if the stories are fiction, the subject of the stories is fiction.

 

[McBell]

If you need to try to stretch Santa Claus to St. Nicholas, you have lost the argument.

There are books about Santa Clause.
There are books about St. Nicholas.

If the stories about Santa Claus can be shown to be wrong, (a sleigh drawn by reindeer landing on millions of rooftops) then one can conclude Santa Clause is fiction.

Just because one can conclude that Santa Claus is fiction is not a reason to conclude that St. Nicholas is fiction.

Your analogy is about two sets of stories about two different "people".

The Bible is one set of stories about one god. Like with the stories about Santa, if the stories are fiction, the subject of the stories is fiction.

Fair enough.

Now what about the part of my post talking about how disproving a story merely disproves the story?
I got many a story I can tell you about my many adventures through life.
Some of them are even true.
Does the disproving the ones that are false mean I do not exist?

No analogies for you to latch onto this time.
Mostly because it seems I suck at them.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I think I have come to understand your view of evolution that would lead you to believe in a FIRST somethingorother.

Your View:
At one point in time, there was a species of animals that would have been called (had there been people to name them) StinkaDoos. StinkaDoos looked somewhat like modern kangaroos but they had very rounded ears. Also, their forearms were much longer than those of modern kangaroos. Finally, instead of one pouch, they had two pouches, one each where upright mammals' breasts would be.

In your view, a male and a female StinkaDoo had sex and out popped, lo and behold, the first-ever kangaroo. Not too far away, two other StinkaDoos had sex and gave birth to the second-ever kangaroo. Years later the two Roos mated giving rise to all the kangaroos we see today.

So, tell me, @lostwanderingsoul, is that your view of evolution?

Only the first half. Out popped the first animal that could be called a kangaroo. I do not care what happened after that. At some point there was something that COULD be called a kangaroo. And it was the first. That is all. My complete view of evolution has nothing to do with it.

 

[ecco]

No analogies for you to latch onto this time.

You say "no analogies" yet you post...

I got many a story I can tell you about my many adventures through life.
Some of them are even true.

The entire OT is a continuous story of what the Hebrew God allegedly did and said. Many parts cannot be verified one way or the other. Many parts are definitely false like the Flood and the Exodus. Are any parts unquestionably true?

If an entire narrative is lacking in evidence or obviously false then there is no reason to accept that any of the characters are not also false.

In the case of your not-an-analogiy of yourself, there are stories about you that are absolutely verifiable and those point to an actual you. Not so with your God.

 

[ecco]

Your View:
At one point in time, there was a species of animals that would have been called (had there been people to name them) StinkaDoos. StinkaDoos looked somewhat like modern kangaroos but they had very rounded ears. Also, their forearms were much longer than those of modern kangaroos. Finally, instead of one pouch, they had two pouches, one each where upright mammals' breasts would be.

In your view, a male and a female StinkaDoo had sex and out popped, lo and behold, the first-ever kangaroo. Not too far away, two other StinkaDoos had sex and gave birth to the second-ever kangaroo. Years later the two Roos mated giving rise to all the kangaroos we see today.

So, tell me, @lostwanderingsoul, is that your view of evolution?

Only the first half. Out popped the first animal that could be called a kangaroo. I do not care what happened after that. At some point there was something that COULD be called a kangaroo. And it was the first. That is all. My complete view of evolution has nothing to do with it.

Well, there we have it. You believe that "the first animal that could be called a kangaroo" "popped out" of something that was not a kangaroo.

As I and others have repeatedly told you, you don't have even a basic understanding of how evolution actually works. All you have is your ignorant strawman version - which is completely wrong.

The information is out there in easy-to-understand books. It is your choice to remain willfully ignorant.

 

[Astrophile]

You do not even see your own foolishness. There is no first color red because they are all there at the same time. There is no evolution of anything. But animals evolved over time. One day there was no kangaroo and the next day there was one. If you show different colors each day then someone might identify what day you showed the first red color. And notice that I said animals evolve. I am not denying evolution. But you are denying logic. It is not possible to have ANYTHING unless it started somewhere with a first.

What were the parents of the first kangaroo?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

What were the parents of the first kangaroo?

And everyone continues to miss the point. Do you agree that at some point in history there were no kangaroos? And do you agree that at some later point in history there were kangaroos? Doesn't that mean that somewhere in between those two points there was an animal born that was a kangaroo? I assume that its parents were "near kangaroos" but I do not care. One day an animal was born that was a kangaroo and it was the first. One day there were no automobiles and another day there was one. One day there were no steam engines and another day there were. Everything had to have a first. That is all I am saying but everyone is so busy defending there ideas about evolution that they arue with someone who agrees evolution happened but simply says there was a first of any species.

 

[ecco]

Everything had to have a first.
That is all I am saying but everyone is so busy defending there ideas about evolution that they arue with someone who agrees evolution happened but simply says there was a first of any species.

You cannot agree evolution happened if you don't understand what evolution is or how it works. You have demonstrated - repeatedly- that you are completely ignorant of what evolution is or how it works.

You've been told - repeatedly- that you believe in a cartoonish strawman version of evolution, not Evolution.

Why this doesn't sink in is beyond comprehension.

 

[McBell]

Not so with your God.

And which god is that?

 

[McBell]

Everything had to have a first.

Which was the first "god"?

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm posting this only because I absolutely love how the narrator makes clear just how dumb creationists can really be when confronted with real scientific questions. I know it's (only) 14 minutes long and a lot of members don't like watching anything so interminable (unless it's got cartoon Scotsmen, @Revoltingest), but really, I think it deserves a watch.

It discusses (from both sides of the argument) how kangaroos (and so many other marsupials) got from Mount Ararat to Australia after the flood. And the creationists are absolutely pricesless when they try to make their case.

It's almost cute when creationists try. Except when Eric and his buddy try and be all hip....then it's just annoying.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

You cannot agree evolution happened if you don't understand what evolution is or how it works. You have demonstrated - repeatedly- that you are completely ignorant of what evolution is or how it works.

You've been told - repeatedly- that you believe in a cartoonish strawman version of evolution, not Evolution.

Why this doesn't sink in is beyond comprehension.

I am prepared to listen to your explanation of how there can be kangaroos today if there never was a first. You avoided the question because you have no answer. There was a day when there were no kangaroos and later there was a day when there were kangaroos. Somewhere in between there had to be the first one. Please give your best explanation of why this is not true. Now is your cahance to show how smart you are and how dumb I am.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am prepared to listen to your explanation of how there can be kangaroos today if there never was a first. You avoided the question because you have no answer. There was a day when there were no kangaroos and later there was a day when there were kangaroos. Somewhere in between there had to be the first one. Please give your best explanation of why this is not true. Now is your cahance to show how smart you are and how dumb I am.

Can you come up with a coherent definition of what a kangaroo is?

 

[rational experiences]

Science is a liar it never existed.

It is practiced by choice. A human choice knowing what a human wants natural form to be changed into.

Any human claim about a human is by a human for a human.

No human existed whilst a planet as a human named a God O was forming in space.

Notice however a human thinks about when a planet not a human was forming in space

The AI effect. Displaced human consciousness.

When God erupted to form heavens no human existed.

When heavens cooled its gases no human existed.

When the sun blasted earth with radiation mass no human existed.

When earth water flooded cooled earth evaporated for heavens no human existed.

Life began in water says the scientist.

The form of life he said began still exists as the form he said began.

Not any human.

He quotes the form small cells somehow changed to form each separate by the billions of any other form.

A self human thinking a large or huge thought generalised statement.

Might be why human egotism thinking large huge thoughts claims Mr or Mrs know it all just as a human.

When humans live with humans and sees their human self destructive science behaviours was why humans for humans introduced human spirit teaching against any form science quote.

Actually.