Atheists are in fact Creationists

[Enai de a lukal]

I wonder if you hold the theory of gravitation in similar disdain. Seeing as it doesn't account for the origin of the universe and all.

Lol... exactly.

 

[Crazyflight]

The Bible accurately foretold events that have already occurred and are part of history. One example is the fall of Babylon, when it would occur, and the name of the man who would conquer the city. Did I mention this prophecy was recorded almost 200 years before the events predicted occurred, and long before the conqueror of Babylon was born? Many similar prophecies are in the Bible. Only almighty God can accurately foretell the future in this way, IMO. (Isaiah 46:8-10)

Please. It is commonly agreed by scholars that the Book of Isaiah was written by three different authors! The author that wrote 40-48, about the rise of Cyrus the Great, was alive when Cyrus conquered Babylon. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah

 

[rusra02]

It doesn't matter if you "buy it" or not, that's simply a fact. Evolution is a theory concerning the origin of species (the title of Darwin's book); in other words, the origin of different forms of biological life.

Evolution answers the question of why there are different types of organisms. Demanding it ALSO explain the origin of all life, which it was never intended to do, is like demanding that the theory of gravity also explain the interaction of sub-atomic particles, or the movement of tectonic plates.

In other words, this is a ridiculous and irrelevant demand.

LOL... riiiiiight.

Please. It is commonly agreed by scholars that the Book of Isaiah was written by three different authors! The author that wrote 40-48, about the rise of Cyrus the Great, was alive when Cyrus conquered Babylon. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah

What else could they say to try to explain away the accuracy of this prophecy? But tell me, how did these supposed writers know that Babylon, centuries after her fall, would be an uninhabited waste? (Isaiah 13:19,20) The theory that there were multiple Isaiahs doesn't hold up under scrutiny. And as I mentioned, this is but one of many Bible prophecies accurately fulfilled.

 

[rusra02]

Lol... exactly.

Gravitational theory doesn't try to explain how all life emerged from a single living cell. The comparison is specious, IMO.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What else could they say to try to explain away the accuracy of this prophecy? But tell me, how did these supposed writers know that Babylon, centuries after her fall, would be an uninhabited waste? (Isaiah 13:19,20) The theory that there were multiple Isaiahs doesn't hold up under scrutiny. And as I mentioned, this is but one of many Bible prophecies accurately fulfilled.

To be honest, if you want to play the 'Bible prophecies accuracy' game, it's a separate thread.
You create it, I'll come and play.

It has nothing to do with the creation of life from non-life. That is the only relationship it has with the ToE, since that ALSO has nothing to do with the creation of life from non-life.

 

[Falvlun]

Gravitational theory doesn't try to explain how all life emerged from a single living cell. The comparison is specious, IMO.

Neither does evolution. Or abiogenesis, for that matter.

 

[Renji]

I believe what the Bible says is simple and true: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) God also created, arranged, and structured biological particles. They did not evolve, but like a computer, were the product of intelligent design. The Morse code is simple compared to DNA, but few would argue Morse code is the product of natural forces.

Have you tried reading the bible based on: context, time it was written (and the time the writer wrote it), scholarly viewpoints about a particular verse and the message a particular verse is trying to convey?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Gravitational theory doesn't try to explain how all life emerged from a single living cell.

Which is precisely why the comparison is possible, because evolution doesn't try to explain that either. It is a theory about the diversity of life, not its origin.

Pretty simple, really.

 

[Big_TJ]

Really? Then it should be easy to stir up a little life from almost-alive matter. The fact is, this cannot be done by the most brilliant human minds. Only God's mind can do it.

That's how I know that GOD is not a man. If he were, he would be so embarassed everytime these "christians" speaks about/attribute things to him, and would perhaps just distroy the world out of sheer frustration a LONG time ago.

 

[Sculelos]

What else could they say to try to explain away the accuracy of this prophecy? But tell me, how did these supposed writers know that Babylon, centuries after her fall, would be an uninhabited waste? (Isaiah 13:19,20) The theory that there were multiple Isaiahs doesn't hold up under scrutiny. And as I mentioned, this is but one of many Bible prophecies accurately fulfilled.

Hundreds of Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled however skeptics ignore the prophecies because they say they are historic and can not be verified or perhaps we are reading into it things that it does not say.

That's how I know that GOD is not a man. If he were, he would be so embarassed everytime these "christians" speaks about/attribute things to him, and would perhaps just distroy the world out of sheer frustration a LONG time ago.

God is and is not a Man. God has thought of everything possible to think of and nothing he did not think of he even imagined our imaginings. It is truly hard to fathom God.

 

[rusra02]

Which is precisely why the comparison is possible, because evolution doesn't try to explain that either. It is a theory about the diversity of life, not its origin.

Pretty simple, really.

So the ToE professes to know how all the diversity of life came about, but not how this diversity started.
Child: Mommy, how did we get here?
(Evolutionist) Mommy: Why,we evolved from a one-celled organism.
Child: How did the one-celled orgasm get here? (It is a small child remember)
Mommy: Uh..uh...stop asking so many questions.
The ToE is a theory with no foundation, and no demonstrable beginning.

 

[rusra02]

Have you tried reading the bible based on: context, time it was written (and the time the writer wrote it), scholarly viewpoints about a particular verse and the message a particular verse is trying to convey?

Yes .

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So the ToE professes to know how all the diversity of life came about, but not how this diversity started.
Child: Mommy, how did we get here?
(Evolutionist) Mommy: Why,we evolved from a one-celled organism.
Child: How did the one-celled orgasm get here? (It is a small child remember)
Mommy: Uh..uh...stop asking so many questions.
The ToE is a theory with no foundation, and no demonstrable beginning.

Child: Mommy, how did we get here?
Mommy: Well, when a mummy loves a daddy...
Child: Not that. I mean us. Here. Humans.
Mommy: Honey, that is an amazingly advanced question. How do you think we got here?
Child: Buggered if I know.
Mommy: Fair enough. Honest ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. Better than playing 'Fill the Gaps' with pretend knowledge.

What is the definition of 'demonstrable beginning'? What is the demonstrable beginning of gravity, for instance? Or are you determined to bang on about ToE being redundant due to not explaining the beginning of life.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So the ToE professes to know how all the diversity of life came about, but not how this diversity started.
Child: Mommy, how did we get here?
(Evolutionist) Mommy: Why,we evolved from a one-celled organism.
Child: How did the one-celled orgasm get here? (It is a small child remember)
Mommy: Uh..uh...stop asking so many questions.
The ToE is a theory with no foundation, and no demonstrable beginning.

Is it really so difficult for you to grasp the difference between evolution and abiogenesis? Do you not understand the difference between saying "life diversifies like this..." and "life originated like this..."?

If a ball rolls down a hill, do you need to know the exact origin of the ball in order to observe and understand how it rolls down a hill, or does not knowing the ball's origin mean that any insight or observation of the ball's activities have "no foundation"? Honestly, this is extremely easy to understand. Why can you not understand it?

 

[rusra02]

Child: Mommy, how did we get here?
Mommy: Well, when a mummy loves a daddy...
Child: Not that. I mean us. Here. Humans.
Mommy: Honey, that is an amazingly advanced question. How do you think we got here?
Child: Buggered if I know.
Mommy: Fair enough. Honest ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. Better than playing 'Fill the Gaps' with pretend knowledge.

What is the definition of 'demonstrable beginning'? What is the demonstrable beginning of gravity, for instance? Or are you determined to bang on about ToE being redundant due to not explaining the beginning of life.

I didn't use the word redundant. I think the ToE plays "Fill the Gaps" with pretend knowledge. And really, the question of how life on earth began, and all the amazingly designed creatures and plants came to be, can be answered simply and logically. Arguing from effect to cause, the Bible states: "because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;" (Romans 1:19,20)

 

[rusra02]

Is it really so difficult for you to grasp the difference between evolution and abiogenesis? Do you not understand the difference between saying "life diversifies like this..." and "life originated like this..."?

If a ball rolls down a hill, do you need to know the exact origin of the ball in order to observe and understand how it rolls down a hill, or does not knowing the ball's origin mean that any insight or observation of the ball's activities have "no foundation"? Honestly, this is extremely easy to understand. Why can you not understand it?

You should at least know how the ball got up the hill. I understand the argument. I just believe it is a specious argument, used to avoid the fundamental question which the ToE must ultimately face (but can't).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You should at least know how the ball got up the hill.

The question is Do you need to know where the ball came from (or how it came to the hill) in order to observe and understand how a ball rolls down a hill?

I understand the argument.

No you don't, since you continue to equate evolution and origins. When you finally admit that the origin of life has little to no bearing on the veracity of evolution theory, then you can be said to adequately understand the argument.

I just believe it is a specious argument, used to avoid the fundamental question which the ToE must ultimately face (but can't).

No, it isn't. It's an attempt by you to dodge actually talking about evolution by hiding behind the unrelated subject of biological origins. Evolution no more has to "ultimately face" the question of origins any more than the theory of gravity has to "ultimately face" the origin of magnetism, or germ theory has to "ultimately face" the origin of illness. It's a specious argument on your part used to obfuscate the issue, because you lack understanding of evolution.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

You know the theory of evolution doesn't even speculate as to how the first cell got here, right? That's not the purpose of the theory...

 

[rusra02]

The question is Do you need to know where the ball came from (or how it came to the hill) in order to observe and understand how a ball rolls down a hill?


No you don't, since you continue to equate evolution and origins. When you finally admit that the origin of life has little to no bearing on the veracity of evolution theory, then you can be said to adequately understand the argument.


No, it isn't. It's an attempt by you to dodge actually talking about evolution by hiding behind the unrelated subject of biological origins. Evolution no more has to "ultimately face" the question of origins any more than the theory of gravity has to "ultimately face" the origin of magnetism, or germ theory has to "ultimately face" the origin of illness. It's a specious argument on your part used to obfuscate the issue, because you lack understanding of evolution.

Let me rephrase your argument. Because I don't agree that the beginning of life is irrelevant to how life came about, I don't understand what the ToE claims? Of course the ToE should explain how all this supposed evolving got started. but it can't, so it pretends it doesn't matter. The ToE is a structure without a foundation, IMO. Macroevolution is a myth.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Let me rephrase your argument. Because I don't agree that the beginning of life is irrelevant to how life came about, I don't understand what the ToE claims? Of course the ToE should explain how all this supposed evolving got started. but it can't, so it pretends it doesn't matter. The ToE is a structure without a foundation, IMO. Macroevolution is a myth.

But you believe Micro-evolution? Also how do you explain viruses and Prions? What kind are they??