The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[exchemist]

So when it says he is the image of the invisible God you don't think that implies being able to see something?

When he says if you have SEEN me you have SEEN the Father, you think it has nothing to do with seeing?

To your first question, the body of religious scholarship I have drawn your attention to (N.B. it is not a question of what I think) indeed considers the "image" term does not mean something literally visible.

To your second question, the context (always important not to quote mine ) is that Jesus is replying to a demand from Philip: "Show us the Father". The reply, which Jesus goes on to spell out at length, with: "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" etc is saying he and the Father are one and the same. It is not saying "the Father looks like a regular guy just like me, to the eye". That would be quite ridiculous. It would make a nonsense of the concept of the Incarnation for a start. The whole thing about the Incarnation is Verbum caro factum est, the Word was made flesh, i.e. God took the form of a human being to get close to us and teach us. So clearly he did not have human form before the Incarnation took place.

 

[Valjean]

Do stories not contain the lessons we use to teach others? Morality, kindness, justice, love. That's the point of the myths, not the literal words/story itself.

I prefer Kahlil Gibran; much wiser; more moral, compassionate and inspiring.

 

[Valjean]

Quit deflecting. You claim man came to exist thru evolution. All you can do is make wild speculations.

NO!!! We have mounds of fossil and genetic evidence that he evolved! There is no known alternative mechanism, unless you count magic poofing as a reasonable, evidenced hypothesis.

We follow the evidence. You follow ancient, entirely unevidenced folklore.
Which hypothesis is more reasonable: known, evidenced mechanisms, or magic?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

The thought of Him never enters our minds till we find ourselves in discussions like this.
And where did you get the impression that we denied Him? We simply don't believe in him.

Now that you know of God, the b8ble specifically says you are without excuse.

So if you now refuse to then believe, you are automatically condemned.

Unless you change its kaput for you

 

[Valjean]

What known sequences? You mean the wild conjectures about what happened a billion years ago?

If you know nothing of the evidence, what makes you call it wild conjecture?
You're pretty opinionated about a subject you clearly know nothing about.

 

[Valjean]

Now that you know of God, the b8ble specifically says you are without excuse.

So if you now refuse to then believe, you are automatically condemned.

Unless you change its kaput for you

But I don't know God, and the Bible is just a collection of much edited, contradictory, demonstrably erroneous, ancient fables, is it not?
I'm not refusing anything. I'm open to evidence, any time you can produce it. Till then, I withhold belief -- for the same reason I presume you withhold belief in pink unicorns.

Believe or spend eternity in a lake of fire? This is your compassionate, loving god?
You have no actual evidence for any of these claims, and you know it -- and you think we atheists are the frightened ones?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Atheists spend so much time wrapping themselves in the denial of God they go to the grave leaving themselves without hope...its kaput when an individual who denies God dies.
A pretty stupid pathway given life for humans is finite and very short.
At least the Christian chooses to place their hat in the ring and therefore has hope in life after death.
You can play around with this all you like, you are choosing kaput. A Christian will never be convinced by the the blind stupidity of kaput.

Yes, but you have to claim that your own God is a liar. That does not seem to be the brightest thing to do either.

Actually most Christians do not make the same mistake that you do.

 

[Valjean]

Can you just give me a simple explanation in your own words of what you think happened, that could possibly allow life to suddenly appear?

It didn't suddenly appear. There isn't a clear, life/non-life boundary.
Didn't you read my post #733?
Nor is there a clear, simple explanation of a long series of intricate steps.
You know you're asking for a whole biology course in a few simple words.

 

[Valjean]

Yeah, but have we witnessed and evidenced the macro type evolutionary change that was being dismissed?

Yes, we have.
Keep in mind most evolution is a series of slow, adaptive changes. If it takes hundreds or thousands of generations for a noticeable change to appear, witnessed changes from parent to offspring are not going to be readily observable.
Q: Do you believe in micro-evolution; in small adaptive changes?

 

[Balthazzar]

Yes, we have.
Keep in mind most evolution is a series of slow, adaptive changes. If it takes hundreds or thousands of generations for a noticeable change to appear, witnessed changes from parent to offspring are not going to be readily observable.
Q: Do you believe in micro-evolution; in small adaptive changes?

Micro is typically what we see in adaptation to environmental influences. I do also put stock in macro evolution, the larger scale and more pronounced changes that occur over greater lengths of time.

 

[Astrophile]

OK, well let me examine this a bit. Obviously the Urey-Miller experiment put certain elements together and flashed electricity throughout, something changed, as I understand it, a fuzz type thing.

What Was The Miller-Urey Experiment? • Stated Clearly

If the origin of life happened before scientists were around to observe it, how can our origin be studied with the scientific method? This question is answered in our overview of the Miller-Urey experiment.

www.statedclearly.com

The Urey-Miller experiment showed that amino acids can be produced by ordinary chemistry, without requiring the presence of living organisms. According to your link, the same experiment has been carried out using different starting mixtures of gases, and these have all produced amino acids. Also, according to a lecture that I attended recently, about 100 different amino acids have been found in carbonaceous meteorites; these amino acids must have been produced abiotically.

Please notice that the amino acids were produced from various mixtures of gases, and from carbonaceous material in meteorites; there is no suggestion that something was made out of nothing.

Without the start of life according to reason, would evolution have taken place?

I don't understand your question. What do you mean by 'the start of life according to reason'? In any case, however life started, evolution would have taken place, that is, living things would have evolved into different forms.

 

[Valjean]

Micro is typically what we see in adaptation to environmental influences. I do also put stock in macro evolution, the larger scale and more pronounced changes that occur over greater lengths of time.

How do the micro changes know when to stop, so as to avoid accumulating into macro changes?

 

[Balthazzar]

How do the micro changes know when to stop, so as to avoid accumulating into macro changes?

I have no idea. Why would they need to?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes God created man. You can't explain how you get to a form of initial life for anything to be able to evolve, using evolution as your roadmap.

The topic is the creation of man. Not the creation of first, simple, primitive life.

Evolution explains the arrival of man, and has loads of evidence to back it up.
What evidence do you have for magical creation of humans that weren't born from biological parents?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And the creation story is more along the lines of a fable to you?

Sorry to be the bearer of this news, but... the creation story is demonstrably a fable, yes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't see overwhelming evidence regarding that.

Maybe that is because you refuse to give it an honest look.

I mean, this evidence isn't exactly difficult to find for a person living in the 21st century with access to the internet.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We don't know exactly how he did it. But He's amazing isn't he? He spoke this vast universe into existence. Now that's power.

Yeah. Sounds like Gandalf the wizard saying abracadabra and then pulling a bunny out of a hat.

 

[Valjean]

I have no idea. Why would they need to?

They don't.
For macroevolution not to occur the changes would have to suddenly stop at some point. What would stop them?

Macroevolution is just accumulated microevolutionary change, just as French is an accumulation of Latin changes. At no single point is the transition obvious, but nothing stops the accumulation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What can it teach you if you only consider what it says to be a myth?

Ow, MANY things.

I happen to think that just about all religious scriptures contain human wisdom concerning the "human condition". ie, our place in society, ideas on how to live, philosophies on how to organize society, what a "good life" is about, etc. And all these scriptures contain both good and bad ideas.

Story telling is a powerfull tool to communicate such ideas.
Greek mythology for example is extremely rich in that regard. It tells us about the dangers of jealousy, greed, hunger for power, etc.

Such wisdom is contained in many many stories. Even Star Wars. It tells about oppression, rebellion, good vs evil, courage. Pretty much a David and Goliath type story.

Even something as simple as the tale of the bunny who races the turtle (where the turtle wins because the bunny is arrogant and wastes time during the race in an attempt to show off that he's so fast, he can afford to waste time, exaggerates and eventually loses the race because of it).

There's plenty of such wisdom to be learned from myths and stories in the bible, the torah, the quran, the book of the dead, gilgamesh, the bagavad ghita, greek mythology, roman mythology, norse mythology, star trek episodes, lord of the rings, star wars, etc etc etc etc etc.

But when you start taking such things as literal truth, that's when the actual lesson will fly over your head and you will end up believing absurdities...

Aren't there other places where it says things like he spoke the world into existence? Psalms 33:6-9 Did King David just believe in myths?

Likely you believe that all followers of all religions that you yourself don't believe in, believe in myths.
So why does it strike you as so bizar that people who happen to follow your religion, or who appear in the stories of your religion, believe in myths also?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheists spend so much time wrapping themselves in the denial of God they go to the grave leaving themselves without hope...its kaput when an individual who denies God dies.
A pretty stupid pathway given life for humans is finite and very short.
At least the Christian chooses to place their hat in the ring and therefore has hope in life after death.
You can play around with this all you like, you are choosing kaput. A Christian will never be convinced by the the blind stupidity of kaput.

Whatever makes you feel comfortable, I guess.

Off course, if the muslims are correct, you are just as "kaput".
More then likely though, none of you are correct.