• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheists and their jargon of insults

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Eli G said:
Clarifying my position: I never said that the BigBang was not a reasonable explanation for the origin of the Universe... however, from the theist's point of view, the event was purposeful and intelligently directed throughout.

There is a big difference between this BigBang perspective and the atheist perspective, which proposes the origin of a world as beautiful as ours from a blind explosion, without laws, without direction, etc.
Click to expand...
Here is the deal, in the sciences one has to show evidence for your beliefs. Otherwise they are of no value. You can believe that a God done did it, but if you claim that there was a god behind it you have to demonstrate the evidence for it. Please note, scientists do not say that the Big Bang theory refutes god. It is creationists that tend to do that.
 
E

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Here is the deal: Evolutionists do not have the slightest proof that an animal becomes a different one. :)
 
E

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Someone has made evolutionists believe that because a butterfly comes out of a cocoon and a frog comes out of a tadpole, cows come out of whales. :bomb:

See you next time.
Behave yourselves.
 
Pogo

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Eli G said:
Someone has made evolutionists believe that because a butterfly comes out of a cocoon and a frog comes out of a tadpole, cows come out of whales. :bomb:

See you next time.
Behave yourselves.
Click to expand...
Well I guess that means creationists are the evolutionists because the only people who think that strawmen represents intelligent thought are creationists.
 
E

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Enai de a lukal said:
Miracle (noun): a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

Magic (noun): the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Supernatural (adjective): (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Fairly straightforward English tbh, but there ya' go
Click to expand...
Cool :cool:

Evolution of the species is magic, miraculous and supernatural. :)

Clarification: not an insult. Apes becoming humans is a delicious topic for a scy-fantasy movie. ;)
 
E

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Enai de a lukal said:
That depends what you mean by respect- I don't never agreed to not correct erroneous statements. For one thing, we're not talking about a question of opinion- for instance, which is the best Batman movie, or whether Coke is better than Pepsi, or whether pineapple on pizza is an abomination- but a question of fact, i.e. whether evolution/evolutionary theory meets certain criteria that we had just set out. If you truly don't see how, given the definitions I gave you (which were literally just the top Google result returned when searching for the definition of each of these words), evolution would be an example of something that is not magical, miraculous, or supernatural, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but it's not something I mind to discuss with you. :)
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Eli G said:
Sorry, but it's not something I mind to discuss with you. :)
Click to expand...

The cool thing about scientific ideas is that to be scientific they have to be testable. Scientists cannot afford to be cowards. They know that when they present something new that the burden of proof is upon them and that there will be countless people that disagree with them trying to show that he is wrong.


For some reason creation "scientists" are afraid to do this. That is why they are not scientists, at least not when it comes to their myths. To a man they seem to be afraid to say "If we see X my idea is wrong".
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Eli G said:
Here is the deal: Evolutionists do not have the slightest proof that an animal becomes a different one. :)
Click to expand...
We have overwhelming, consilient evidence that populations change. We've observed speciation in real time.

There are species today that didn't exist a million years ago, and species of a million years ago that didn't exist millions of years before that. New species appear all the time. Are they just popping into existence?

Are you really unaware of the evidence for evolution, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
 
E

Eli G

Well-Known Member
No matter how much I clarify the detail, many on the forum will remain confused about my disbelief in the evolution of species.

It is evident to me that in nature many things, practically all of them, evolve, because they continue to change, adapting to new circumstances, etc. That, of course, includes clearly visible physical changes in some living organisms.

The problem is this: these changes do not generate new species out of previous species. Although the changes I speak of above are evident, there is no evidence that one species has become another through many small changes.

The known laws of genetics admit that changes have limitations, and that when they exceed certain limits, new generations die or regress. I don't have to discuss that with anyone; you just have to learn basic notions about genetics and mutations...

When evolutionists dare to use microevolution as a justification for the emergence of new, non-existent species, they invent things that they have never verified but assume to be true through speculation.
 
E

Eli G

Well-Known Member
For example: evidently, no matter how big the ship that God had Noah build, it would not have fit all the types of dogs that we have today, or all the types of cats, or elephants that existed at that time, etc

However, it is evident that in a period of just over 4 millennia the types of animals that existed have varied greatly and have even appeared, not new species, but new classes of the same species, although with different characteristics than those they had.

Gen. 7:14 They went in with every wild animal according to its kind, and every domestic animal according to its kind, and every creeping animal of the earth according to its kind, and every flying creature according to its kind, every bird, every winged creature. 15 They kept going to Noah inside the ark, two by two, of every sort of flesh that has the breath of life. 16 So they went in, male and female of every sort of flesh, just as God had commanded him. After that Jehovah shut the door behind him.

Otherwise donkeys and horses would not have sterile offspring when they crossed each other. Maybe some call them speciation, for that reason, but the truth is that no matter how different donkeys are from horses, it is not impossible that they belong to the same species and that at some point it can happen again without a problem. It is not very difficult to see the similarity between a horse and a donkey, so saying that they are different kinds of animals might be an exaggeration.

It doesn't matter if evolutionists try to see it from their own atheistic (maybe?) perspective, but the explanation of different varieties of "similar" animals does not necessarily have to be related to the theory of the evolution of "new non-existent species". The perspective is "optional", and that does not mean that the theistic non-evolutiopnist perspective should be considered anti-scientific.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Eli G said:
No matter how much I clarify the detail, many on the forum will remain confused about my disbelief in the evolution of species.

It is evident to me that in nature many things, practically all of them, evolve, because they continue to change, adapting to new circumstances, etc. That, of course, includes clearly visible physical changes in some living organisms.

The problem is this: these changes do not generate new species out of previous species. Although the changes I speak of above are evident, there is no evidence that one species has become another through many small changes.

The known laws of genetics admit that changes have limitations, and that when they exceed certain limits, new generations die or regress. I don't have to discuss that with anyone; you just have to learn basic notions about genetics and mutations...

When evolutionists dare to use microevolution as a justification for the emergence of new, non-existent species, they invent things that they have never verified but assume to be true through speculation.
Click to expand...
As I've asked a hundred times, how do the small changes know when to stop, to avoid accumulating into large changes?
 
E

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Valjean said:
As I've asked a hundred times, how do the small changes know when to stop, to avoid accumulating into large changes?
Click to expand...
The limit is engraved in the initial genetics that organisms were endowed with when they were created.

Genetics studies these aspects from an experimental point of view. A few years ago experiments were done with the vinegar fly and the results would surprise you. Mutations that exceeded certain limits could not be achieved without being degrading, and in the end they died or could not reproduce again.
 
E

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Enai de a lukal said:
Except, we've observed speciation many times. Species is defined by who can produce fertile offspring, and its been observed in many organisms with fast reproductive/life cycles (like Darwin's finches or the Larksi e-Coli experiments). So at least we now know the issue: you're factually mistaken about evolution, and the relevant scientific evidence.
Click to expand...
"Speciation" is a modern invented term. Evolutionists don't even agree on what that could be exactly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top