EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Gharib]

can i ask how old are you guys?

is this the kind of childish posts that we are going to be dealing with?

don't any of you have any respect, oh i forgot you are a bunch of apes.

please grow up, all of you. i will be reporting posts from now on, if they are irrespective to other members or are insulting. that goes for all of you.

now lets disscuss proper things.

is there any 5 year old who does not understand this? raise your hand.

 

[Gharib]

bringing the big bang into this, is RELEVANT. get it.

there are 2 sides to the imaginary story of evolution. ok

one states that life came about by chance, meaning blindly, meaning god knows what.

and the other side states that god created life, so now which of these does evolution support?

if we use the first one, i recon evolution is in favour of it, because the big bang states that life came about from amino acids and says it evolved into bacteria or a more sophisticated thingi.

where as the second side about god creating things, states that god created everything, with a perfect desing. so evolution does not support this, because it says things somehow magically evolved, just as life somehow magically came about by chance.

so thats the explanation and it seems like the big bang is a very big part of this thread and is RELEVANT, is there anyone who does not get it?

 

[DarkSun]

bringing the big bang into this, is RELEVANT. get it.

there are 2 sides to the imaginary story of evolution. ok

one states that life came about by chance, meaning blindly, meaning god knows what.

and the other side states that god created life, so now which of these does evolution support?

if we use the first one, i recon evolution is in favour of it, because the big bang states that life came about from amino acids and says it evolved into bacteria or a more sophisticated thingi.

where as the second side about god creating things, states that god created everything, with a perfect desing. so evolution does not support this, because it says things somehow magically evolved, just as life somehow magically came about by chance.

so thats the explanation and it seems like the big bang is a very big part of this thread and is RELEVANT, is there anyone who does not get it?

I'm sorry if you feel I'm being disrespectful in saying this, but the Big Bang Theory , Abiogenesis Theory and Evolution are three completely different theories in science.

The Big Bang supposedly occurred trillions of years ago, whereas the matter which stemmed from the Big Bang only arranged itself into the first self-replicating life-forms (by chance) four billion years ago.

The theories which explain how the first life-forms came to exist are termed Abiogenesis Theory, and the natural selection which governed the world from thereon is known as evolution. This did not occur by chance.

Most religions tend to mix the creation of the world with life manifesting therein, so it's understandable that one would think the Big Bang Theory and ToE are considered the same, but they're not in science. They're all independant theories based on different evidence.

If you would like to disagree with one of these theories and not evolution, then start another thread.

Also, would it be okay if you replied to my post where I explained evolution to you? I'm beginning to feel a bit ignored.

 

[Gharib]

I'm sorry if you feel I'm being disrespectful in saying this, but the Big Bang Theory , Abiogenesis Theory and Evolution are three completely different theories in science.

The Big Bang supposedly occurred trillions of years ago, whereas the matter which stemmed from the Big Bang only arranged itself into the first self-replicating life-forms (by chance) four billion years ago.

The theories which explain how the first life-forms came to exist are termed Abiogenesis Theory, and the natural selection which governed the world from thereon is known as evolution. This did not occur by chance.

Most religions tend to mix the creation of the world with life manifesting therein, so it's understandable that one would think the Big Bang Theory and ToE are considered the same, but they're not in science. They're all independant theories based on different evidence.

If you would like to disagree with one of these theories and not evolution, then start another thread.

Also, would it be okay if you replied to my post where I explained evolution to you? I'm beginning to feel a bit ignored.

ok then it seems the big bang and evolution are not a part of each other. so that settles it then, NO MORE BIG BANG.

i'm sorry for not having replied to your posts, i've been in the other thread, rather than this. i will reply to them, i appologise for not having done so already.

 

[Father Heathen]

Willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty do not deserve respect.

 

[DarkSun]

ok then it seems the big bang and evolution are not a part of each other. so that settles it then, NO MORE BIG BANG.

i'm sorry for not having replied to your posts, i've been in the other thread, rather than this. i will reply to them, i appologise for not having done so already.

Actually, the Big Bang Theory describes the creation of the universe... Evolution describes the development of life on earth through descent with modification. They're both right.

And thank you for that. I can post my comments up here again if you like.

 

[Gharib]

Willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty do no deserve respect.

and what does someone who promotes that kind of stuff desserve?

 

[Gharib]

Actually, the Big Bang Theory describes the creation of the universe... Evolution describes the development of life on earth through descent with modification. They're both right.

And thank you for that. I can post my comments up here again if you like.

oh yeah please do so. i don't know how far you guys have taken this thread.

 

[DarkSun]

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...77679-evolution-what-lie-154.html#post1603564

Second post on this page.

 

[Gharib]

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...77679-evolution-what-lie-154.html#post1603564

Second post on this page.

one confusing question:

what exactly am i looking for?

what i am sopposed to do to that post and the links?

like i said, i haven't been in this thread for a few days, so i've missed quite a bit.

 

[DarkSun]

one confusing question:

what exactly am i looking for?

what i am sopposed to do to that post and the links?

like i said, i haven't been in this thread for a few days, so i've missed quite a bit.

Well, I don't really expect you to do anything but read it. You don't have to, though.

 

[Gharib]

Well, I don't really expect you to do anything but read it. You don't have to, though.

no actually i will, i am kind of liking this stuff about evolution, i don't know why. i never really liked it when people would post links to reading material, but with evolution i don't mind.

 

[Gharib]

i read the first link and i have one question,

when a fossil is discovered, do both sides make tests on it. by sides i mean creationists and evolutionists. to decide the age and features of a particular fossil that may have lived some million years ago?

the link said that many test are done around the world by many scientist, but i don't know if it means both evolutionists and creationists?

 

[DarkSun]

i read the first link and i have one question,

when a fossil is discovered, do both sides make tests on it. by sides i mean creationists and evolutionists. to decide the age and features of a particular fossil that may have lived some million years ago?

the link said that many test are done around the world by many scientist, but i don't know if it means both evolutionists and creationists?

I don't really think the religious beliefs of the people conducting the tests really matters, but still...

I can't really speak for the people conducting the tests, because I don't know them well enough to know what they believe.

But you'd think the people conducting scientific experiments would be evolutionists by default. Because that's the scientific explanation for how life came to exist on earth. That's not to say that there wouldn't gave been creationists conducting those experiments somewhere along the line, IMO.

 

[Gharib]

I don't really think the religious beliefs of the people conducting the tests really matters, but still...

I can't really speak for the people conducting the tests, because I don't know them well enough to know what they believe.

But you'd think the people conducting scientific experiments would be evolutionists by default. Because that's the scientific explanation for how life came to exist on earth. That's not to say that there wouldn't gave been creationists conducting those experiments somewhere along the line, IMO.

but do you know of any actuall case where creationists have been asked to conduct searches alongside evolutionists in a fossil they deemed to be a missing link?

is there any such case?

 

[painted wolf]

Creationists (and really anyone) are allowed access to fossils, so long as the museum is assured that they will be safely and properly handled.

Some fossils are so delicate or unique that most people only work with high quality casts or computer scanned reproductions. Today's casts and replicas can reproduce all the features of the original... computer scans can even show what is inside the fossil without harming it.

wa:do

ps... many creationists conduct their own fossil digs and get their own fossils.

 

[Gharib]

Creationists (and really anyone) are allowed access to fossils, so long as the museum is assured that they will be safely and properly handled.

Some fossils are so delicate or unique that most people only work with high quality casts or computer scanned reproductions. Today's casts and replicas can reproduce all the features of the original... computer scans can even show what is inside the fossil without harming it.

wa:do

ps... many creationists conduct their own fossil digs and get their own fossils.

but what about a fossil that evolutionists consider to be vital in support of evolution, so creationists test that also, to confirm of what evolutionists are saying about it is true?

 

[Autodidact]

bringing the big bang into this, is RELEVANT. get it.

there are 2 sides to the imaginary story of evolution. ok

one states that life came about by chance, meaning blindly, meaning god knows what.

and the other side states that god created life, so now which of these does evolution support?

if we use the first one, i recon evolution is in favour of it, because the big bang states that life came about from amino acids and says it evolved into bacteria or a more sophisticated thingi.

where as the second side about god creating things, states that god created everything, with a perfect desing. so evolution does not support this, because it says things somehow magically evolved, just as life somehow magically came about by chance.

so thats the explanation and it seems like the big bang is a very big part of this thread and is RELEVANT, is there anyone who does not get it?

I can't stand it any more. Are you incapable of learning, or what? I simply cannot continue to post and prove the same things over and over again. What does it take to communicate the simplest concepts to you, eselam? What is wrong with you? Please stop the noise in your head for a minute, read this post and try your hardest to grasp what I am saying to you:

EVOLUTION DOES NOT DENY THAT ALLAH CREATED ALL THINGS. IN THIS THREAD, WE ARE ALL ASSUMING THAT ALLAH CREATED ALL THINGS. ToE DOES NOT TELL US THAT ALLAH DID NOT CREATE US. IT ONLY TELLS HOW.

EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE BIG BANG THEORY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. NEITHER DOES EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.

THE TWO SIDES ARE NOT EVOLUTION VS. GOD. THE TWO SIDES ARE EVOLUTION VS. MAGIC POOFING. BIOLOGISTS SAY GOD CREATED US USING EVOLUTION. YOU SAY GOD CREATED US USING MAGIC POOFING.

EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING HAPPENED BY MAGIC OR BY ACCIDENT.

WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO START OVER AND EXPLAIN WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS IN TERMS THAT A FIRST GRADER CAN UNDERSTAND?

WHAT WILL IT TAKE FOR YOU TO GRASP THESE SIMPLE CONCEPTS? We will never be able to get anywhere in this thread because we are not arguing about evolution, we are arguing about atheism, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and some imaginary, non-existent caricature of evolution.

This thread has cost you $5. Please, I beg of you, I can't go on like this. Do not make me say these things again, I think it's around the 100th time. Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

ok then it seems the big bang and evolution are not a part of each other. so that settles it then, NO MORE BIG BANG.

And that only took 2000 posts! Progress. Here's a wild thought, eselam. Before you try to disprove one of the strongest theories in the history of science, how about learning the first thing about it? Such as what it says?

 

[Autodidact]

and what does someone who promotes that kind of stuff desserve?

You deserve to be ignored, but my desire to promote truth inspires me to persist despite your active resistance to learning.