Atheists are in fact Creationists

[ImmortalFlame]

Let me rephrase your argument.

I'm guessing by "rephrase" you mean "strawman", but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

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?

Evolution is NOT an explanation of how life "CAME ABOUT".

It IS the explanation for how life CHANGES, ADAPTS AND DIVERSIFIES OVER TIME.

How many times must it be spelled out for you??

Of course the ToE should explain how all this supposed evolving got started.

Evolution DOES explain how things evolve. What it DOESN'T explain is the origin of life - BECAUSE IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO. Your argument is like saying that the theory of gravity is inadequate because it doesn't explain the origin of magnestism.

but it can't, so it pretends it doesn't matter. The ToE is a structure without a foundation, IMO. Macroevolution is a myth.

Please read my statements above again, carefully.

When you finally show some capacity for learning, get back to me.

 

[McBell]

Hundreds of Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled ....

Yes, this empty claim has been made for thousands of years.
And it is just as empty a claim now as it was back when it was first claimed.

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.

nonsense is nonsense.
It matters not how much you believe the nonsense
it matters not how much you want or need the nonsense to be true.
nonsense is nonsense
for example:

Ladies and gentlemen,
I stand up before you to sit down behind you to tell you of something I know nothing about,
next Tuesday which is good Friday there is a mothers meeting for fathers only.
Admission is free please pay at the door
pull up a chair and sit on the floor
I nearly forgot, on the way over here I ran over a dead cat and nearly killed
which reminds me
one bright day, in the middle of the night
two dead boys got up to fight
back to back they faced each other, drew their knives and shot each other
A deaf policeman heard the noise and came and killed the two dead boys
​

Interesting, is it not how your above quoted post sounds so much like the nonsense I presented.
Though entertaining, it is still merely nothing more than nonsense.

 

[McBell]

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.

yes.
But you got the little conversation mixed up.
See, unlike religion, science is not afraid to say "I do not know"
Interesting how you completely ignore abiogenesis.
Though from someone who prefers to have the same simple answer to fill in for "I do not know" it is not surprising.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, this empty claim has been made for thousands of years.
And it is just as empty a claim now as it was back when it was first claimed.


nonsense is nonsense.
It matters not how much you believe the nonsense
it matters not how much you want or need the nonsense to be true.
nonsense is nonsense
for example:

Ladies and gentlemen,
I stand up before you to sit down behind you to tell you of something I know nothing about,
next Tuesday which is good Friday there is a mothers meeting for fathers only.
Admission is free please pay at the door
pull up a chair and sit on the floor
I nearly forgot, on the way over here I ran over a dead cat and nearly killed
which reminds me
one bright day, in the middle of the night
two dead boys got up to fight
back to back they faced each other, drew their knives and shot each other
A deaf policeman heard the noise and came and killed the two dead boys
​

Interesting, is it not how your above quoted post sounds so much like the nonsense I presented.
Though entertaining, it is still merely nothing more than nonsense.

But it's also the case what that is not nonsense is not nonsense, and what is taken for nonsense is taken for nonsense; and that if nonsense is assumed, it is all that will be found.

 

[McBell]

But it's also the case what that is not nonsense is not nonsense, and what is taken for nonsense is taken for nonsense; and that if nonsense is assumed, it is all that will be found.

Nice try, but it matters not how much you dress up bull ****, it is still bull ****.

 

[Willamena]

Nice try, but it matters not how much you dress up bull ****, it is still bull ****.

And sometimes a banana is more than just a banana.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

And sometimes a banana is more than just a banana.

It can be a plantain....

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So the ToE professes to know how all the diversity of life came about, but not how this diversity started.

Right- the ToE is a theory about biological diversity, not the origin of biological life. These are distinct, albeit obviously related, questions, and probably not ones which ANY single theory could adequately answer. In any case, its no knock against the ToE that it doesn't explain something which it isn't supposed to explain in the first place.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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)

So you don't think it's redundant?

Meh, whatever.
Imagine for a second the whole theory of evolution is baloney.

-> It doesn't prove there's a Creator God

Let's imagine there's a Creator God

-> It doesn't prove a Christian God

So when you say simply and logically, I can agree with the FIRST part of the statement. The second not so much.

 

[rusra02]

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

I believe microevolution is a poorly coined word. It implies what many scientists assert—that small changes prove an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has observed, called macroevolution.

 

[rusra02]

Right- the ToE is a theory about biological diversity, not the origin of biological life. These are distinct, albeit obviously related, questions, and probably not ones which ANY single theory could adequately answer. In any case, its no knock against the ToE that it doesn't explain something which it isn't supposed to explain in the first place.

Well, like I said, that argument doesn't satisfy me. Evolution, to me, is a house built on shifting sand.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I believe microevolution is a poorly coined word. It implies what many scientists assert—that small changes prove an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has observed, called macroevolution.

And what is Macroevolution?

Also what about Viruses and Prions what does creation tell about them? Or even bacteria? Are they creepy crawly things?

If someone fell to the ground started foaming at the mouth, and clenching their jaw and making guttaral screams would you say they were possessed?

 

[rusra02]

And what is Macroevolution?

Also what about Viruses and Prions what does creation tell about them? Or even bacteria? Are they creepy crawly things?

If someone fell to the ground started foaming at the mouth, and clenching their jaw and making guttaral screams would you say they were possessed?

You don't know what macroevolution purports to be?

Viruses are life forms created by a mind far more brilliant than any human. Computer viruses require an intelligent if miscreant mind. How much more so do lifeforms of infinite complexity require an intelligent Creator.

No, I would say they were having a seizure of some type, perhaps epileptic.

 

[secret2]

Well, like I said, that argument doesn't satisfy me. Evolution, to me, is a house built on shifting sand.

It's not an argument. People are telling you that it's a truck and it's not supposed to be able to fly. A plain fact that is not hard to comprehend.

 

[McBell]

Well, like I said, that argument doesn't satisfy me. Evolution, to me, is a house built on shifting sand.

Problem is...
It is not an "argument".
It is merely a statement of fact.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You don't know what macroevolution purports to be?

Viruses are life forms created by a mind far more brilliant than any human. Computer viruses require an intelligent if miscreant mind. How much more so do lifeforms of infinite complexity require an intelligent Creator.

No, I would say they were having a seizure of some type, perhaps epileptic.

1. I want to know what you think it is.

2. Viruses are not alive. They do not behave like a living thing. Their only form of activity that can resemble living would be reproduction...and that can only occur...with something living.

3. Why would you not say it's a demon possessing them. We have a case in the bible with the exact same symptoms, it's said that it was a demon. So given that we should agree that all signs of individuals who foam at the mouth, gnash their teeth and become rigid...are not having a seizure but are possessed by demons.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I believe microevolution is a poorly coined word. It implies what many scientists assert—that small changes prove an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has observed, called macroevolution.

Yes...microevolution IS a poorly coined word. Evolution is evolution.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Yes...microevolution IS a poorly coined word. Evolution is evolution.

micro-evolution is the incorrect term, I thought any intelligent person would have known this.

The real word is pseudo-evolution

 

[rusra02]

1. I want to know what you think it is.

2. Viruses are not alive. They do not behave like a living thing. Their only form of activity that can resemble living would be reproduction...and that can only occur...with something living.

3. Why would you not say it's a demon possessing them. We have a case in the bible with thef exact same symptoms, it's said that it was a demon. So given that we should agree that all signs of individuals who foam at the mouth, gnash their teeth and become rigid...are not having a seizure but are possessed by demons.

1. Macroevolution is the belief that small changes in living things accumulating over billions of years produced the big changes needed to make one type of creature into another; fish into amphibian, for example. This belief rests upon the unproven belief that mutations can produce entirely new families of animals and plants. Experiential evidence has debunked this idea, which continues to be a chief article of faith among evolutionists.
2. Whether viruses are living or not is a subject of considerable debate, which I do not wish to participate in.
3. At times, wicked spirit creatures called demons do possess persons. The Bible differentiates between demon possession and epilepsy. For example, Matthew 4:24 states: " And the report about him went out into all Syria; and they brought him all those faring badly, distressed with various diseases and torments, demon-possessed and epileptic and paralyzed persons, and he cured them." Thus demon possession and epilepsy are mentioned separately.

 

[secret2]

1. Macroevolution is the belief that small changes in living things accumulating over billions of years produced the big changes needed to make one type of creature into another

Oh great, you used to use the word "kind", now you are using "type". I wonder if those are the same thing.

fish into amphibian, for example. This belief rests upon the unproven belief that mutations can produce entirely new families of animals and plants.

So after all these years and all the patient education extended to you, you still think that evolution means "human popping out of monkey's vagina." Cool.

Experiential evidence has debunked this idea, which continues to be a chief article of faith among evolutionists.

You do know that lying is not socially desirable behaviour, right?