The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Talking bad about the Bible is just giving opinions.

Is it now? Even if one has reliable evidence that the Bible is wrong?

The Bible has been shown to be authentic in many ways, no matter what opinion you have of it. It's like someone constantly talks bad about a person, but you realize that the person who speaks badly doesn't know that person, but you do. Is what the other says going to change what you think of that person?

I would say that it is the other way around. It fails test after test. How do you think that it has been shown to be authentic? I am rather curious.

Those who speak ill of the Bible have never studied it thoroughly, just like someone who speaks ill of someone they don't know, they have to try to get to know them better.

Being honest about the Bible is not "speaking ill" of it. And I would say that people that read it literally have never studied it thoroughly. One has to ignore all of the failures of the Bible to do that.

 

[Kenny]

Talking bad about the Bible is just giving opinions.

The Bible has been shown to be authentic in many ways, no matter what opinion you have of it. It's like someone constantly talks bad about a person, but you realize that the person who speaks badly doesn't know that person, but you do. Is what the other says going to change what you think of that person?

Those who speak ill of the Bible have never studied it thoroughly, just like someone who speaks ill of someone they don't know, they have to try to get to know them better.

I would tend to agree...

They have been trying to eradicate its veracity for millenniums and it still moves forward generation after generation.

 

[Esteban X]

I’ll give you one dirty little secret. It never happened imo

Opinions are like....................................

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would tend to agree...

They have been trying to eradicate its veracity for millenniums and it still moves forward generation after generation.

The same could be said about many religious books. In other words that is an argument that can be refuted by a "So what?".

One thing that a large number of religious people seem to have in common is that they just want to believe. They do not want to know.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sigh. So many people wasting their time and their minds with anti-evolutionism...

 

[shunyadragon]

And this is where interpretations differ.

The issue here is not an interpretation issue. It is literally how the Fall of Adam and Eve formed from a perfect world without death and sin, and Original Sin took place to justify the purpose of Jesus Christ.

There are many interpretations of "short history of the earth' including an interpretation that there are actually a pre-Adamic race that was before Adam was created.

Not meaningful response relevant to the issue of the text.

The Bible isn't a history of the earth,

Obvious too many contradictions of mythology.

but rather the history of mankind from the point of Adam.

Which is the problem.

As I said, there are many variances in the interpretation of Genesis. One thing we are sure... it was created. Some have the faith that God did it and others have the faith that it happened all by itself.

Science does not consider the nature of our existence happening all by itself.

I think it is you that is dodging when you come out like that. I have been responding and continue to do so. When you say "refused to respond" it gives you less authority when you answer. IMV

Yes, I believe there was a time when it was perfect. When you said "in direct conflict" you did not really add details... at least you didn't explain it well enough. I don't see that Genesis is in direct conflict with science. Genesis does not mention "how" He created what we see... only how He created Adam and Eve. If He created what we see through evolution... fine. We certainly see how evolution seems to have a mandate, a driving force not in contrary to what god wants.

So... there is a response and maybe you can be more civil and cogent in your responses. I know you can do it... I've seen it.

I am civil but blunt. I do not believe you give adequate responses. I may have to live with that. You dodge around without responding directly. Yes, the concept of a perfect world without death and suffering as described specifically in the Bible is completely in contradiction with the scientific evidence that natural evolution with death and suffering throughout the entire existence of life on Earth. You offering vague off-the-wall alternatives does not change the facts of the scripture. There is absolutely no evidence of any sort of past perfect world. You confirm you believe this, which confirms an extreme contradiction with the actual facts of the history of life on Earth and the history of humanity

 

[Heyo]

Talking bad about the Bible is just giving opinions.

The Bible has been shown to be authentic in many ways, no matter what opinion you have of it. It's like someone constantly talks bad about a person, but you realize that the person who speaks badly doesn't know that person, but you do. Is what the other says going to change what you think of that person?

Those who speak ill of the Bible have never studied it thoroughly, just like someone who speaks ill of someone they don't know, they have to try to get to know them better.

Talking bad about science is just giving opinions.

Science has been shown to be successful in many ways, no matter what opinion you have of it. It's like someone constantly talks bad about a person, but you realize that the person who speaks badly doesn't know that person, but you do. Is what the other says going to change what you think of that person?

Those who speak ill of science have never studied it thoroughly, just like someone who speaks ill of someone they don't know, they have to try to get to know them better.

 

[shunyadragon]

Talking bad about the Bible is just giving opinions.

The Bible has been shown to be authentic in many ways, no matter what opinion you have of it. It's like someone constantly talks bad about a person, but you realize that the person who speaks badly doesn't know that person, but you do. Is what the other says going to change what you think of that person?

Those who speak ill of the Bible have never studied it thoroughly, just like someone who speaks ill of someone they don't know, they have to try to get to know them better.

Actually, the objective literary history of the Bible has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt as not an authentic text of known provenance and unknown authorship of most of the text. It was compiled, edited, and redacted later than the actual events the books claim to be a witness of. All of the gospels did not exist until sometime after 50 AD. The Pentateuch cannot be remotely dated before 700-500 BCE, an of completely unknown authorship.

I have studied the Bible extensively for over fifty years, and do not speak ill of the Bible I speak factually about the Bible.

 

[Eli G]

Given the misbehavior of evolutionary advocates on the internet, that theory loses even more credibility.

They fill the discussions in the network with fallacies and insults... They do not prove anything with facts, and they continually lie saying that the theory is proven, when fossils of intermediate species have never been found. They also show their ignorance by confusing microevolution or diversity within the species with the macroevolution that is the transmutation of a species or genre to another.

The proponents of the theory on the Internet are pure sophists who have no knowledge of what they stand for and just send readers to internet links that don't explain anything clearly, but can never explain anything related to the theory themselves. They believe it and defend it because they think that if they don't, they would have to accept the alternative that there is a Creator. Even in that they are wrong, because evolution and creation by God are not the only alternatives to explain life and its diversity on earth; other scientists meditate on alternatives such as life coming from outerspace and others on rapid genetic changes for unknown reasons (instead of the slow changes that the known theory preaches).

It's not worth trying to reason with people who behave like this.
Good night.

PS: I don't speak ill of science, because I have many brothers of faith who are scientists. https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/science/origin-of-life-viewpoints/

 

[Subduction Zone]

Given the misbehavior of evolutionary advocates on the internet, that theory loses even more credibility.

What "misbehavior"? I see far more coming from creationists.

They fill the discussions in the network with fallacies and insults... They do not prove anything with facts, and they continually lie saying that the theory is proven, when fossils of intermediate species have never been found. They also show their ignorance by confusing microevolution or diversity within the species with the macroevolution that is the transmutation of a species or genre to another.

Where? You may be overly sensitive because you are wrong. That is often a defense mechanism. And no one has said that it is "proven". And you really should not say such incredibly ignorant things. We have endless transitional fossils. You obviously do not even understand the concept. Lucy is an excellent transitional fossil. I can go over her traits and explain how Australopithecus afarensis is the "missing link" that creationists have constantly demanded. And no, macroevolution is merely speciation. We have countless examples of it. It has been observed in the field and in the lab. By the way,, how do I know this? Because the scientist that defined the terms defined macroevolution as "Macroevolution refers (most of the time, in practice) to evolutionary patterns and processes above the species level. It is usually contrasted with microevolution, or evolutionary change within populations. "

Now I can understand your confusion in regards to this because even many "scientific" sites get the definition wrong. But once again, the person that gets to define a term in the sciences is the person that coined it.

Philosophy of Macroevolution (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The proponents of the theory on the Internet are pure sophists who have no knowledge of what they stand for and just send readers to internet links that don't explain anything clearly, but can never explain anything related to the theory themselves. They believe it and defend it because they think that if they don't, they would have to accept the alternative that there is a Creator. Even in that they are wrong, because evolution and creation by God are not the only alternatives to explain life and its diversity on earth; other scientists meditate on alternatives such as life coming from outerspace and others on rapid genetic changes for unknown reasons (instead of the slow changes that the known theory preaches).

Oh my! And you complained about insults. You are demonstrably ignorant of the sciences. People have offered to help you to learn. But here you are making false allegations against those that accept and often understand the sciences.

If you do not understand something ask questions politely. That is all that you have to do. People will answer. But put yourself in their place. If some person that was terribly ignorant made strawman arguments and demanded evidence from you how would you react?

So once again, ask politely and almost everything can and will be explained to you.

It's not worth trying to reason with people who behave like this.
Good night.

I think that fault is mainly yours. You just cannot accept the fact that you are demonstrably wrong. I am almost sure that I have offered to go over the scientific method and the concept of scientific evidence with you. It is clear that you do not understand these concepts. That is not an insult by the way. You could have claimed that it was if I did not offer a solution for your ignorance.

 

[Eli G]

If you already know it, why do you insist?
I am not interested in having any dialogue with you.
Good bye.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you already know it, why do you insist?
I am not interested in having any dialogue with you.
Good bye.

Because people that deny science can be threat to others. Don't believe me? Look at the death rates from Covid in Trump counties verses that of Democrat counties. It was much higher. Trump supporters were far less likely to get vaccinated. The vaccine worked, but people did not understand how it works. It does two things. First it lowers the chance of getting covid in the first place. It is not perfect, but it does seriously lower the infection rate of the vaccinated. Second, and far more important. It greatly reduced the death rate of those that caught the disease. It gave people's immune system a head start in fight the disease. The death rate at one point was five times higher if one was not vaccinated than if one was.

 

[John53]

Given the misbehavior of evolutionary advocates on the internet, that theory loses even more credibility.

They fill the discussions in the network with fallacies and insults... They do not prove anything with facts, and they continually lie saying that the theory is proven, when fossils of intermediate species have never been found. They also show their ignorance by confusing microevolution or diversity within the species with the macroevolution that is the transmutation of a species or genre to another.

The proponents of the theory on the Internet are pure sophists who have no knowledge of what they stand for and just send readers to internet links that don't explain anything clearly, but can never explain anything related to the theory themselves. They believe it and defend it because they think that if they don't, they would have to accept the alternative that there is a Creator. Even in that they are wrong, because evolution and creation by God are not the only alternatives to explain life and its diversity on earth; other scientists meditate on alternatives such as life coming from outerspace and others on rapid genetic changes for unknown reasons (instead of the slow changes that the known theory preaches).

It's not worth trying to reason with people who behave like this.
Good night.

PS: I don't speak ill of science, because I have many brothers of faith who are scientists. https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/science/origin-of-life-viewpoints/

You complain about insults as you deliver them. Interesting tactic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you already know it, why do you insist?
I am not interested in having any dialogue with you.
Good bye.

And you do not seem to realize how rude your earlier lame arguments and continued false claims about others have been. If you can be polite I can be polite in response. I would suggest that you ask how we know what we know.

 

[Kenny]

The issue here is not an interpretation issue. It is literally how the Fall of Adam and Eve formed from a perfect world without death and sin, and Original Sin took place to justify the purpose of Jesus Christ.

Nice statement but just because you say it doesn't make it true.

Not meaningful response relevant to the issue of the text.

Then you seem to pick and choose what you want to talk about

Obvious too many contradictions of mythology.

You haven't proven your point

Science does not consider the nature of our existence happening all by itself.

??? - you are all over the map - can you stay in one place?

I am civil but blunt. I do not believe you give adequate responses. I may have to live with that. You dodge around without responding directly. Yes, the concept of a perfect world without death and suffering as described specifically in the Bible is completely in contradiction with the scientific evidence that natural evolution with death and suffering throughout the entire existence of life on Earth. You offering vague off-the-wall alternatives does not change the facts of the scripture. There is absolutely no evidence of any sort of past perfect world. You confirm you believe this, which confirms an extreme contradiction with the actual facts of the history of life on Earth and the history of humanity

Again... you make statements as if when you make it, it must be true. I give direct responses -- you just seem to ignore them and then use the word "dodge" - which is YOUR dodge. Probably because you don't have a case and must resort to such tactics--a common occurrence.

Civil - and blunt.

 

[shunyadragon]

Given the misbehavior of evolutionary advocates on the internet, that theory loses even more credibility.

They fill the discussions in the network with fallacies and insults... They do not prove anything with facts, and they continually lie saying that the theory is proven, when fossils of intermediate species have never been found. They also show their ignorance by confusing microevolution or diversity within the species with the macroevolution that is the transmutation of a species or genre to another.

The proponents of the theory on the Internet are pure sophists who have no knowledge of what they stand for and just send readers to internet links that don't explain anything clearly, but can never explain anything related to the theory themselves. They believe it and defend it because they think that if they don't, they would have to accept the alternative that there is a Creator. Even in that they are wrong, because evolution and creation by God are not the only alternatives to explain life and its diversity on earth; other scientists meditate on alternatives such as life coming from outerspace and others on rapid genetic changes for unknown reasons (instead of the slow changes that the known theory preaches).

It's not worth trying to reason with people who behave like this.
Good night.

PS: I don't speak ill of science, because I have many brothers of faith who are scientists. https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/science/origin-of-life-viewpoints/

The most bizarre unbelievable post I have seen on RF!

It's not worth trying to reason with people who behave like this.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nice statement but just because you say it doesn't make it true.


Then you seem to pick and choose what you want to talk about



You haven't proven your point


??? - you are all over the map - can you stay in one place?


Again... you make statements as if when you make it, it must be true. I give direct responses -- you just seem to ignore them and then use the word "dodge" - which is YOUR dodge. Probably because you don't have a case and must resort to such tactics--a common occurrence.

Civil - and blunt.

You're all over the place on your responses.

Still waiting for you to respond to the specific issue concerning the unresolvable conflict between Genesis and the science of evolution.

 

[blü 2]

I see this as proof positive of an intelligent CREATOR who would invent the wheel but once and then apply it to every form of cart/buggy/wagon that exists. That would make total sense and is not a form of deception except to someone who arrogantly denies GOD and wears silly neckties.

Nothing arrogant about my denial of God ─ I never got that far.

No one will tell me what a real God is, such that if I find a real suspect I can determine whether it's God or not.

So to this point I have nothing to deny.

Instead they describe God in imaginary terms, like omnipotent, perfect, infinite &c &c, or by what God is alleged to have done eg creator ─ which seems odd, given that on present evidence the universe is about 14 bn years old, the sun and earth are about 4.5 bn years old, there was life on earth by 3.5 bn years ago, genus Homo is maybe 2-3 million years old, we ─ Homo sapiens sapiens may be something like 150,000 years old, and Yahweh is about 3500 years old (in which time [he]'s gone from being a member of a pantheon to a henotheistic being to the sole God to a Trinity).

Still, if you can indeed tell me what a real God is, as above, I'll be very interested.

 

[Valjean]

Opinions are like....................................

Opinions can be fact-based, tradition-based, faith-based or loyalty-based. They're often attempts to fit into an existing, traditional narrative, rather than objective facts.

 

[Valjean]

Given the misbehavior of evolutionary advocates on the internet, that theory loses even more credibility.

Behavior does not reflect credibility. Credibility rests on objective facts.

They fill the discussions in the network with fallacies and insults...

OK. Refute the fallacies with contradictory facts.
Insults? Is pointing out erroneous reasoning or factual error an insult, or a favor?

They do not prove anything with facts, and they continually lie saying that the theory is proven,

Now who's lying?
We never claim to prove anything. We just claim that our position is congruent with the observed and tested facts.

when fossils of intermediate species have never been found.

Where do you come up with this crazy stuff? How are you defining an 'intermediate species?"
All fossils are intermediate species. Every link is part of the chain.

They also show their ignorance by confusing microevolution or diversity within the species with the macroevolution that is the transmutation of a species or genre to another.

What's the difference? Macroevolution is just accumulated microevolution.
A hundred small changes is adaptation, and often invisible. A million is speciation/evolution and usually noticeable. How much change = evolution is an arbitrary call.
Do you claim organisms somehow stop adapting; stop microevolving at some point, to avoid speciating? How does this happen?
A hundred steps is a walk, a million is an expedition. I see no essential difference.

The proponents of the theory on the Internet are pure sophists who have no knowledge of what they stand for and just send readers to internet links that don't explain anything clearly,

No, we have whole libraries of observations and tested facts, with more pouring in daily. Knowledge is the whole justification of the theory. It is not faith or tradition based.
Please link to some of these sites that fail to explain things clearly. Are you sure you understand these sites?

but can never explain anything related to the theory themselves.

We have been doing so for years. Apparently you've missed, dismissed, ignored, or failed to understand it. Perhaps you haven't the background information to grasp the points, like trying to read without learning the alphabet.

Please note: You're comparing apples and oranges. A Creator is not an explanation. It posits no mechanism. It explains nothing. It's only an assertion of agency.

They believe it and defend it because they think that if they don't, they would have to accept the alternative that there is a Creator

We don't care what we believe. We have no doctrine or agenda. We believe whatever the best evidence indicates. If good, empirical evidence of a god is found, we'd accept it.
Thus far there is no such evidence, so a creator is not yet an alternative.

Even in that they are wrong, because evolution and creation by God are not the only alternatives to explain life and its diversity on earth;

"...creation by God" is not an explanation, nor does it claim to explain life -- just change. If you believe there is an alternative explanation, please inform us.
You really should pay more attention to " evolutionist" posts, because you're clearly missing their points.

other scientists meditate on alternatives such as life coming from outerspace and others on rapid genetic changes for unknown reasons (instead of the slow changes that the known theory preaches).

The theory doesn't preach. It explains observations and facts.
Life from space just moves the venue, and it doesn't explain how it occurred, just its origins on Earth.
Nobody's denying that rapid genetic change occurs. Mutations happen all the time. Rapid change also occurs with rapid environmental change. Speciation occurs both rapidly and slowly.

It's not worth trying to reason with people who behave like this.
Good night.

But there's usually little attempt to reason with us. There's a lot of preaching and constructing straw men, as is seen here. There's a lot of nitpicking details, apparently expecting the entire edifice to collapse.
There is little indication that evolution and its supporting evidence is actually understood by its detractors, and no objective support for the "alternative" assertion of magical 'poofing'.