Many Sages One Truth
Active Member
Evolution has never been observed-
I wonder what they call mutation of viruses?
I wonder what they call mutation of viruses?
-
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!
Evolution has never been observed
- Thread starter Acim
- Start date
tripleog2010
Member
Evolution is utter BS. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would believe such nonsense. The evidence for God is in the creation. Creation is not God; God created it.
I know it because I can see it. Evolutionists are absolutely pathetic in their understanding in anything, and their thinking processes are obviously degenerated into complete stupidity.
It is just junk science and it isn't worth spending any time on it.
The Grace of Repentance: Keeping God's Commandments Grace, Repentance, Christian, Jesus Christ, God's Commandments
I know it because I can see it. Evolutionists are absolutely pathetic in their understanding in anything, and their thinking processes are obviously degenerated into complete stupidity.
It is just junk science and it isn't worth spending any time on it.
The Grace of Repentance: Keeping God's Commandments Grace, Repentance, Christian, Jesus Christ, God's Commandments
outhouse
Atheistically
That is a poor personal opinion probably from a severe lack of educatin on the subject at hand.
Its called a education. try it sometime
there is ZERO evidence for this
whats funny about your statement is that there is a direct percentage of belief in evolution tied to how educated someone is.
More uneducated people believe in creation.
Another poor personal opinion probably due to a severe lack of general education
Your basically trolling at this point and your post seems child like
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Presumably nylon-eating bacteria don't exist, then? Because I could drop some in your underwear drawer if you like.
Many Sages One Truth
Active Member
::Sigh:: fundies- Always using the opportunity to preach, even in an evolution thread...
Dan4reason
Facts not Faith
Many creationists use that argument a lot. However, many things with evidence have not been seen directly. The list includes black holes, atoms, emotion, etc. Also we have never seen God create the universe, so does that mean there is no good reason to believe in that?
I just want to thank you very much for this incredibly helpful comment. And most especially for the link for what is most certainly an excellent book.
Wow, can you imagine, over five years of study!
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because Biological Evolution is an established scientific fact and the Theory of Evolution contains more empirical evidence than Gravitational Theory?
Really? What God? Who's God?
And can you define the meaning of true objective evidence?
You've seen God? Or are you simply stating you see nature and conclude God?
Biologists are all stupid degenerates. That's a constructive statement.
When's the last time you had a immunization?
OK, enjoy the rest of your life attempting to avoid the results of biological research..
We call this advertising spam around here. And it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Opinion. I don't feel ignorant about what evolution says, at basic level. I also said, "I am PERHAPS not as familiar."
Cause I'm not engaging in your straw man spin on the logic of how much I understand about biological evolution.
Go address one of my posts where I've shaken things up in my reading of the material presented. Have the discussion on the actual material presented, my actual response, and let us discuss it this way rather than through your straw man spin that continues to show up inaccurate.
If not able or willing to do that sort of debate, my apologies in advance, but I may ignore your posts. You lack integrity in your assertions and apparently don't want to discuss the material I've addressed like 9 times on this thread. This straw man stuff you keep coming up with bores me.
Originally Posted by Acim
How can we say, "it is not simply a matter of change over time," while also saying, "a central idea of evolution is that forms have changed over time?"
Non sequitur, and also invalid. It is a semantical trick. May not be intentional, but I think intent is there.
Like saying,
- Religion is not simply a matter of faith in God," while also saying, "a central idea of religion is humans have faith in God." The intent on the second part I think is clear, the first part is vague and I believe intending on drawing distinction, but is bit erroneous when considering the 2nd assertion. As usual, the (first) not statement is unnecessary. The 2nd statement would be fine without such an assertion.
Merely stating something as central idea, speaks to foundation of mental construct. Would perhaps be best to avoid contradicting that, or speaking in negative about that very foundational assertion.
Using the term genetic, specifies the assertion enough. Such that it would read:
> Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetics.
"inheritance" is the circular part, that is not necessary to bring sense and specificity to the assertion.
How can we say, "it is not simply a matter of change over time," while also saying, "a central idea of evolution is that forms have changed over time?"
Non sequitur, and also invalid. It is a semantical trick. May not be intentional, but I think intent is there.
Like saying,
- Religion is not simply a matter of faith in God," while also saying, "a central idea of religion is humans have faith in God." The intent on the second part I think is clear, the first part is vague and I believe intending on drawing distinction, but is bit erroneous when considering the 2nd assertion. As usual, the (first) not statement is unnecessary. The 2nd statement would be fine without such an assertion.
Merely stating something as central idea, speaks to foundation of mental construct. Would perhaps be best to avoid contradicting that, or speaking in negative about that very foundational assertion.
Using the term genetic, specifies the assertion enough. Such that it would read:
> Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetics.
"inheritance" is the circular part, that is not necessary to bring sense and specificity to the assertion.
Up to you really. I think there is reason to believe in these things. The inferences are there based on premises, set of data.
Just becomes matter of integrity to assert on one hand, "many things with evidence have not been seen directly," while also asserting, "this one (unseen) thing has been observed."
I know that it is of no use to try and have a reasonable conversation , but her goes for intelligent people.
[
Observe (-z-) v. 1. v.t. keep, follow, adhere to, perform duly, (law command, appointed time, method, principle, silence, rite, anniversary, etc.) 2. perceive, mark, watch, take notice of, become conscious of, (person, thing, that, how); the~ed of all~ers, person etc. on whom etc. attention is concentrated. 3. examine and note (phenonema0 without aid of experiment. 4. say, esp. by way of comment. 5. v.i. make remarks (s) on. 6. Hence~able a. (ME, f. of observer f. L OB(servare keep) watch, attend to].
That’s why the words empirical and objective are used with the word ‘evidence’ in science. Evidence has to be objectively observed. Not directly observed, but empirically observed. It doen't mean "directly".
Nothing supernatural has ever been empirically observed. Nature has.
[
No in the slightest. It’s up to the objective evidence. Objective evidence is not “up to” anyone. It’s reality. It’s fact. The fact that people are not educated enough to know what it means, won’t change reality.
Existing, objective evidence certainly is very helpful in determining whether one should ‘believe’ in things or not.
Sets of data are not premises. They’re facts.
That’s why the word “observe’ is used together with “empirical” in science. Things like atoms have been empirically observed, but never seen directly. The effects of atoms certainly have been objectively observed.
Observe from the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1987:
Observe (-z-) v. 1. v.t. keep, follow, adhere to, perform duly, (law command, appointed time, method, principle, silence, rite, anniversary, etc.) 2. perceive, mark, watch, take notice of, become conscious of, (person, thing, that, how); the~ed of all~ers, person etc. on whom etc. attention is concentrated. 3. examine and note (phenonema0 without aid of experiment. 4. say, esp. by way of comment. 5. v.i. make remarks (s) on. 6. Hence~able a. (ME, f. of observer f. L OB(servare keep) watch, attend to].
That’s why the words empirical and objective are used with the word ‘evidence’ in science. Evidence has to be objectively observed. Not directly observed, but empirically observed. It doen't mean "directly".
Nothing supernatural has ever been empirically observed. Nature has.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
And yet you're so wrong in these assumptions. Believers can not produce evidence that a god exist, and there are so many gods these days, nor can believers show any evidence of creation. To assume a god created man to be perfect goes to the mind of this god. It shows it as a weak being that hardly fits the classification of being omnipotent or omniscient.
Evolution explains the relationship and diversity of life on this planet. It is never meant to explain the beginning of life. It deals with existing life. The facts of Evolution are backed by evidence found within biology as well as sciences of different disciplines (i.e. Geology and Anthropology).
I grant that you have observed nature objectively. Have you observed yourself? Just asking.
waitasec
Veteran Member
why are you so hostile...?
you know the truth.... where is that peace that comes with knowing the truth?
perhaps you don't know the truth...:sorry1:
Dan4reason
Facts not Faith
Evolution also is based on mountains of data. The human evolution fossil record alone is iron-clad evidence for evolution.
outhouse
Atheistically
there is the truth boys and girls.
a creationist can never refute the facts of logic and reason.
waitasec
Veteran Member
outhouse
Atheistically
oh yes they can...but why do those who do want to?
I feel many try but always fail miserably
they want to protect their literal translation as it would destroy their false belief.
waitasec
Veteran Member
i don't see how though.
there are plenty of believers who understand evolution and it doesn't affect their religious belief. and i would also say those who are able to understand evolution are much more prone to be "christ" like rather than being "paul" like...
but that is, after all, my opinion.