Irony of the evolutionary belief

[TagliatelliMonster]

Uh, yes they are, we cast out demons in the Name of Jesus Christ that are behind this torment and confusion, they get a thrill out of making a mockery of people who are created in Gods image. They like nothing more than to mutilate and destroy people and families.
You have evil people taking advantage of little kids making suggestions to them that they were born the wrong sex.

What a wonderful loving message.
Must be that "christian love" I keep hearing about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You’re arguing is similar to looking at a computer program and saying the code and language came about by natural processes.

Computer programs don't reproduce with variation and aren't in competition with peers over limited resources. So, no.

Well, God wrote the code for creation, His fingerprint is all over it.

There is no code. There are atoms that, through physics / chemistry, collect into molecules which themselves engage in chemical reactions.

Evolution as far as origin of life

Evolution isn't about the origins of life.

fell flat

There's nothing to fall there, because evolution is about origins of species, not of life.

and now science has to back track

There's no backtracking. Your sources lie to you.

to save face and it’s not working, frauds.

The frauds are entirely in your camp dude.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

LOL!! Creationists claiming that someone else lacks integrity. At the very best you have a pot calling the kettle black situation. By the way, a heavily edited video, especially by creationists, screams of quote mining. I guess that means it is okay to refute the existence of God with the Bible. After all it does say "There is no God".

Reminds me of that despicable passage in that Ben Stein movie where they edited Dawkins' interview to such an extent that they made it seem like he believed that aliens engineered life on earth.

Every time you think they couldn't fall any lower, they go ahead and surprise you again.

 

[shunyadragon]

Is this right?

The whole interview that follows is more revealing of Dawkins view.

The problem is do all historians ancient and contemporary historians support the historical existence of the Biblical supernatural God No. Josephus did not make the claim of believing in a supernatural Jesus. Most contemporary academic historians present a factual basis for the existence of Jesus and what Christianity and the Bible reads, and ot a truth statement on Christianity and the Divine nature of Jesus. This the same as the objective approach concerning all religions. Science does not take sides on subjective religious issues. All Josephus did was report those that believed in Jesus.

Some historians do deny the existence of Jesus.

The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in Past and Present - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tripping up Dawkins on a miss statement by Dawkins does not justify pouncing with claws out. You have to more even in reference to Dawkins,

 

[ElishaElijah]

The whole interview that follows is more revealing of Dawkins view.

The problem is do all historians ancient and contemporary historians support the historical existence of the Biblical supernatural God No. Josephus did not make the claim of believing in a supernatural Jesus. Most contemporary academic historians present a factual basis for the existence of Jesus and what Christianity and the Bible reads, and ot a truth statement on Christianity and the Divine nature of Jesus. This the same as the objective approach concerning all religions. Science does not take sides on subjective religious issues. All Josephus did was report those that believed in Jesus.

Some historians do deny the existence of Jesus.

The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in Past and Present - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tripping up Dawkins on a miss statement by Dawkins does not justify pouncing with claws out. You have to more even in reference to Dawkins,

These are not a list of ancient historians. I’m glad the guy admitted he changed his view and wasn’t honest about Jesus Christ existing because He did and still does.

 

[shunyadragon]

So abiogenesis does not offer any idea as to WHAT might have been the first form of life, is that what you are saying? I remember you didn't like a dictionary definition of abiogenesis, so how about the following, do you want to refute it also by saying oh, they don't know what they're talking about maybe?

wikipedia under abiogenesis
" biology, abiogenesis (from Greek ἀ- a- 'not' + βῐ́ος bios 'life' + γένεσις genesis 'origin') or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process, but the transition from non-life to life has never been observed experimentally."

Remember it says natural process. The Bible does not say "natural process." But yes, that God caused life to be on the earth.

My comment -- uh - yeah...and like to walk out of class if I could because there ain't gonna be any answers except um, we don't know now -- maybe later. Maybe you think wikipedia is wrong when they say the transition from non-life to life has -- never been observed experimentally. About the Urey-Miller experiment, it also says: "The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of proteins, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. External sources of energy may have triggered these reactions, including lightning, radiation, atmospheric entries of micro-meteorites and implosion of bubbles in sea and ocean waves. Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication."
But they don't KNOW that.
So again, even the Urey-Miller experiments are contrived and not demonstrating in reality how life got started on the earth. Maybe you have more information.

I wanted to emphasis the problem of the Intelligent Design perspective of the science of evolution. The challenge is the 'arguing from ignorance' of the accusation of "gaps,"

The interesting problem of the argument in the article about the heart is that the accusation the the intermediates between the different stages or intermediates "Will not work." the problem is he is making the generalization that the intermediates "cannot work" when we do not have some of the intermediates that "do not work." Yes, the evolutionary story of the heart is incomplete in some aspect, but that does not conclude that the natural evolution of the heart is impossible.

This sort of claim concerning the evolution of the eye until all the stages and genetic evolution of the different types of eyes have been knoen without gaps. Therefore move on to the heart where the information of the evolution of the heat is some how incomplete.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Yes, the evolutionary story of the heart is incomplete in some aspect, but that does not conclude that the natural evolution of the heart is impossible.

It has been shown to not be possible and evolutionists cannot answer the obvious problems, there are no solutions to the objections. That’s just the heart

 

[Subduction Zone]

These are not a list of ancient historians. I’m glad the guy admitted he changed his view and wasn’t honest about Jesus Christ existing because He did and still does.

Jesus probably existed but not "Jesus Christ". Do you understand the difference between the two?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has been shown to not be possible and evolutionists cannot answer the obvious problems, there are no solutions to the objections. That’s just the heart

How has it been shown not to be possible? You need something a lot stronger than an argument from ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It has been shown to not be possible

No. Not knowing how a certain thing happened, doesn't "prove" that it didn't happen. Let alone that it can't happen...

You creationist folks always manage to get that wrong.
It's like you folks are experts at using the fallacy of argument from ignorance in every possible way.

and evolutionists cannot answer the obvious problems, there are no solutions to the objections. That’s just the heart

Again, this is like saying that because a murder is unsolved, therefor there was no murder.

Assanine.

 

[shunyadragon]

It has been shown to not be possible and evolutionists cannot answer the obvious problems, there are no solutions to the objections. That’s just the heart

This does not respond to the issue of the claims of Intelligent Design. Supposed "Gaps" in scientific knowledge cannot conclude that something is impossible. The legitimate academic scientists without a religious agenda I have cited acknowledge the limits of current knowledge concerning the heart do not conclude it is impossible It is only the Intelligent Design argument that makes this claim with a religious agenda and is historically a false arguing from ignorance.

 

[ElishaElijah]

This does not respond to the issue of the claims of Intelligent Design. Supposed "Gaps" in scientific knowledge cannot conclude that something is impossible. The legitimate academic scientists without a religious agenda I have cited acknowledge the limits of current knowledge concerning the heart do not conclude it is impossible It is only the Intelligent Design argument that makes this claim with a religious agenda and is historically a false arguing from ignorance.

It’s an honest assessment from anyone looking at the heart, the obvious problems with the evolutionary view, and yes it is an impossibility for the heart to evolve through natural process. Your defense is always an ad hominem one and you have no answer. The only viable answer for the heart design and application is that an Intelligent Creator designed, created, sustained and the working for the living person, animal or creature.

 

[shunyadragon]

It’s an honest assessment from anyone looking at the heart, the obvious problems with the evolutionary view, and yes it is an impossibility for the heart to evolve through natural process. Your defense is always an ad hominem one and you have no answer. The only viable answer for the heart design and application is that an Intelligent Creator designed, created, sustained and the working for the living person, animal or creature.

The impossibility of the evolution of the heart as well as evolution in general has not been determined by the objective science without the bias of religious beliefs,

The actual real fact that only those with a biased subjective religious agenda object to the sciences of evolution is NOT an ad hominem. No one else in science proposes this. 95%+ of all scientist support the sciences of evolution as is objectively demonstrated.

There is absolutely no objective evidence of the existence of an 'Intelligent Designer' that may be called God. Intelligent design is a subjective religious assumption without any basis in fact only a biased assumption of 'arguing from ignorance.'

 

[ElishaElijah]

There is absolutely no objective evidence of the existence of an 'Intelligent Designer' that may be called God. Intelligent design is a subjective religious assumption without any basis in fact only a biased assumption of 'arguing from ignorance.

Except creation itself is the proof, you know it and so does everyone else. The only bias is from people in rebellion against God, that’s how I see it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Except creation itself is the proof, you know it and so does everyone else. The only bias is from people in rebellion against God, that’s how I see it.

No, we don't know that.
Just calling something "creation" doesn't magically make it so. You have to actually demonstrate it. Then, you have to demonstrate that the god you believe in exists and had something to do with it. That's a lot of work ahead of you.

 

[shunyadragon]

Except creation itself is the proof,

Extremely circular argument. So circular it bits you in the butt.

you know it and so does everyone else. The only bias is from people in rebellion against God, that’s how I see it.

Good thing that what you propose is "That's how I see it," and not based on an unbiased consideration of the objective evidence. Sounds like a worldwide conspiracy of almost all the scientists in the world in the sciences related to evolution.

Explain that only those few scientists out of the thousands in the fields related to evolution with a strong religious bias like those affiliated with AIG and Discovery Institute reject the sciences of evolution?

It is a fact that 95%+of all scientists in the fields related to evolution and every major academic university in the world support the sciences of evolution. Most supporters of evolution in the USA believe in God and Theistic Evolution

Can you explain this contradiction based on the evidence without appealing to subjective religious beliefs?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Extremely circular argument. So circular it bits you in the butt.

2000 years from now scenario:
See this computer? Someone designed it, created the language and software and made
It work.
That’s circular reasoning and ignorance,it happened billions of years ago and the language happened 1 letter at a time till a laptop showed up, hears the keyboard.lol

 

[Balthazzar]

The Hide and Seek Champion of the world is Big Foot.
The hide and seek champion of all creation is God.

Haha ...
Ha
Ha ...

Someone nose something quick

 

[ImmortalFlame]

2000 years from now scenario:
See this computer? Someone designed it, created the language and software and made
It work.
That’s circular reasoning and ignorance,it happened billions of years ago and the language happened 1 letter at a time till a laptop showed up, hears the keyboard.lol

A tree is significantly more complicated than a computer, but you don't assume a tree was designed because you know trees grow in nature.

Conversely, you may assume a laptop is designed, but would you still believe it was designed if you found a tree on which laptops were growing like fruit?

The watchmaker fallacy doesn't work.

 

[ElishaElijah]

It is a fact that 95%+of all scientists in the fields related to evolution and every major academic university in the world support the sciences of evolution. Most supporters of evolution in the USA believe in God and Theistic Evolution

So the Bible says wide is the road that leads to destruction and narrow the way that leads to life so it’s a fact 95+ percent of all scientists are on the road to destruction according Jesus Christ the Creator.
Are you saying that 95+ in the same echo chamber have the Truth? They don’t and cannot support even the evolution of the heart, they even say they don’t have the answers, just speculation.