questfortruth
Well-Known Member
The Quest for Truth having the baby quest, it is a scary thing.
-
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!
Shortest Proof for Creationism?
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
One mans proof is another mans big steaming pile of bovine feces....
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Such kindness from you. You think, that my song deserves to be continued.
But what is your own opinion?
I won't answer that because i don't want to get banned
This is incorrect.
The theory predicts what kinds of things might be found in the tree of life and the extinct forms in the ground, and what will not be found, such as the famous precambrian rabbits. The theory predicts that life will continue evolving, more quickly with environmental changes. The theory predicted that forms like archeopteryx and tiktaalik ought to be discovered with time.
The theory predicts, for example, that the coronavirus would evolve, and that forms that are able to generate the most copies of themselves will displace others less successful forms. For a new strain to become dominant, it has to outcompete existing forms, meaning more transmissible, and ideally for the virus, less lethal. It doesn't help the virus to go into a casket and underground with its host.
Religions only care about the science that contradicts their faith-based beliefs. It has nothing to do with the explanatory or predictive power of the science.
Sounds like they are insecure in their beliefs if disagreeing with them makes them defensive. You don't see secular humanists getting defensive when a creationist disagrees with them. They simply reject the creationist's claims for being insufficiently supported by evidence.
The theory of evolution is already settled science. The theory won't be falsified.
And even if it were, the biblical account of creation is already ruled out by the existing evidence. Suppose that one day, that precambrian rabbit or that human being in the belly of a dinosaur is found overturning the theory. The mountains of existing evidence don't go away. It just needs to be reinterpreted in the light of the falsifying find. That's not going to happen, but what would we be forced to conclude if it did? Not the Genesis story, which tells of a god who wants to be known, understood, loved, believed, and worshiped. I can't think of another logical possibility other than that a superhuman intelligence and force planted all of that evidence to deceive man into believing that naturalistic biological evolution occurred. Does that sound like the god of the Christian Bible to you?
Trucks have beds.ABSTRACT:
1. proof, that there are transitional forms in the modern theory of evolution.
2. statement, that they are not capable of living and surviving.
3. conclusion, that there is God.
Once upon a time, there were no humans on Earth.
But the leading lifeform was bacteria.
Therefore, there are transitional forms between us and bacteria.
Therefore, there are transitional forms (living on the planet) between us in 2021 AD and bacteria some billion years ago.
Later the leading lifeform became underwater plants.
There were no humans on Earth.
Thus, there are transitional forms between us and plants.
Later the leading lifeform became fish.
There were no humans on Earth.
Thus, there are transitional forms between us and fish.
Later the leading lifeform became monkeys.
There were no humans on Earth.
Thus, there are transitional forms between us and monkeys.
But the transitional forms are not capable of living and surviving.
We came to contradiction, therefore there is God.
We came to contradiction, therefore there is God.
We came to contradiction, therefore there is God.
Rice is in transition to pudding.
Conclusion. Therefore God.
It makes as much sense as yours. Illogical, fallacious, and silly.
They contradict themselves as well as making little sense.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
I am positively different from millions of non-prominent
and unfamiliar journal submitters. I have completed
secondary school with the Gold Medal, Tartu University
with Cum Laude, and I have successfully published in
Physical Review E and European Physical Journal B.
Presented are short clear proofs of
the conjectures from Number Theory, waiting at my home
office to be published by you!
If somebody (including me) has convinced me of having
made a mistake, I repent and will try to correct the
mistake. But I cannot correct a mistake, just because
somebody has seemingly joked in saying that I have made
a mistake there. Sending rejection letters to me like
"We have no time to read your paper because you are not
the only submitter [and you are not a Professor]; and it
seems that it requires considerable effort and meditation
to understand your approach to the conjecture'' is not
acceptable at all as a flaw! Please look at the type
of mistake demonstration, I would accept: if I would write
in a paper: ``2=5+7'', then the editor would find that
place and reply: ``2=5+7=12 does not hold''.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Then it is not part of Science, for there is a falsifiability criterion.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
But your religion is Christianity. Would you desire that your God would be globally accepted? The
proof for God helps to spread the Gospel.
Just because I am Christian does not mean I have to accept flawed thinking from other Christians.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
You are safe from any banning. You are like the face and heart of this forum.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
The special combination of piecewise logic and feelings produces a nihilistic
way of living (or dying). It is defined by the conclusion that there is no
Absolute Truth -- everyone can have his or her own reality. It is like in one
planetary-sized madhouse, where the sick ones do not take medicine because of
their trust in their own defined normality. There are no objective standards
and viewpoints. Everybody feels like she or he is an Omniscient Suverene god
in the self-given right to reject even $1+2=3$ if the latter does not sound
good: ``Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil'' Genesis
3:22. Just like a lady rejects a good candidate while dating, if she is
suddenly bored. ``Michael Jackson -- Remember The Time'', ``Lady Gaga -- Bad
Romance'', ``The Simpsons -- The ancient, mystic society of No Homers'',
``The Simpsons -- No Homers Club'' YouTube. To cite Friedrich Nietzsche, the
theoretic behind Nihilism: ``The question is not that something is true or
false in the absolute sense, the question is: is this something beneficial for
life or not? Anything must be seen as right if it serves my interests.''
Therefore, one can only guess how many valid papers were unjustly rejected.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Examine the picture??! THAT'S your response?!
The picture you posted in the OP is a joke, obviously. A sham, a caricature. If whoever made that picture was doing it in all seriousness then they are COMPLETELY AN UTTERLY DEVOID of knowledge on the subject of evolution. There should be no doubt of this.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
The Biblical God tells, that there are many kinds of beings on the planet.
Theory of Darwin tells, that there is only one single organism in the origin of all life, including humans..
Thus, the Evolution tells an absurd, that there is only humankind on the planet, and no bird-kind, no worm-kind, no plant-kind. Namely, birds are humans too.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
You've got it backward, obviously. The original organism cannot be considered "human." "Human" is a distinction given to our particular branch on a very large tree. In other words, we are an end result. A currently existing product of the evolution of the "original organism." You can't call the lowest rung of the tree "human" - because that descriptor only makes sense as we have applied it to our current place in the ever-branching tree.
However, humans could be considered product of any prior step in the tree. So the sort of labeling you're trying to do only works in that direction, not the bullcrap you've got stuck in your head.
The fact that you think that image in your OP is at all relevant to anything is extremely telling. Your knowledge of evolution is currently broken and unusable. Go study some more. You don't get it. You simply don't. It is so apparent that it is painful watching you make a fool of yourself over and over again. So obvious. Get right with the information. Currently you could only convince someone as ignorant as you are. Seriously... that is all you could hope for with the utter crap you keep producing in this forum.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Darwin operates with the term species. Such a term is possible if to consider a kind. There are different species within the kind of beings. For example, there are black people and white people.
But they belong to one kind: humankind. Definition of a kind: all beings, who share a common ancestor. So, there is only one kind in the Theory of Evolution. You can name it with any word. But it is easy to remember: humankind.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
UMM you see Black people and White people as different species
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
If we would discover organisms onUMM you see Black people and White people as different species
Venus they would be venerian-kind. But all life on Earth is humankind in the Theory of Evolution.