The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe in It

[ChristineM]

Still it does not matter whether you think it is or is not an evolutionary thing. No animal other than those you call humans wear clothing, no matter what the climate is.

This relates to evolution in that humans have evolved a unique intelligence that allows them to adapt and even change there environment.

 

[ChristineM]

... and some people like fish produce their own ' antifreeze ' so to speak.

However, No animal prays. No animal says or gives ' thanks ' before eating. Animals are Not spiritual creation.
Humans were Not created to have a lifecycle, but designed to live forever. No recycling of humans or animals.
It was Satan and Adam who threw a monkey wrench into God's ' garden ' purpose.
This interruption in the ' garden ' does Not mean God has abandoned His garden purpose.
The passing of time has allowed for us (even though now imperfect) to be born and think who we would want as Sovereign over us before the ' garden ' is restored, and like Adam, who was originally offered everlasting life on a beautiful paradisical Earth, mankind will have that same opportunity under Christ's millennial reign over Earth.

Humans used to thank the animal that fed them. What happened to that? It became swallowed up in religion

Your evidence that humans live forever? Yes humans are recycled, in this way we are all made of dead people.

Your faith is yours, facts are mine

 

[ratiocinator]

Besides 'unseen gravity' there is 'unseen wind' and we see the effects that both gravity and wind produce.
I can't say what 'Moran' meant.
I'll give it a try in that when we apply what we can learn from the Bible we can see good effects.
When we apply God's 'fruit of the spirit' we find there is No law against them. We see good effects:
( love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness and self control - Galatians 5:22-23 )
When we display the 'works of the flesh' we reap effects which are Not good -> Galatians 5:19-21.

Unfortunately you have to be very selective in what parts of the bible you apply if you want good effects (ignore the god approved genocide, stoning witches, that sort of thing). Even then look at all the different beliefs people hold who all say they follow the bible.

I've read the bible and I found it to be inconsistent and often self-contradictory; I certainly saw no coherent message.

Even if what you said was universally true (which it obviously isn't), that would only be evidence that the bible contained good advice, not evidence of any god.

 

[ChristineM]

I can agree the universe has been expanding far longer than the Bible because the universe was here first.
The Bible stopped ' expanding ', so to speak, with the writings by John in the 1st century.
To me ' stretches them like a tent .... ' does mean universe expansion at Isaiah 40:22.
So, although the Bible No longer expands, so to speak, new scrolls (aka books) will be opened in the future under Christ's millennium-long day of governing over Earth.

The bible changes with every publication. There are currently over 200 english language bibles, no two completely agree.

And none of those bibles can be compared to an original because no original exists. He closest is the vulgate, penned some 80 years after the original. Is that a bible you favour or is it one of the new ones?

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh jeez. Another with the ad hom.

Dont understand what?

It not only supports what i said it is the basis of what i said.

You didn't understand what you claim as fact. You evade. That's clear. Further, I haven't heard much from any other "species" that they wonder how the universe came about.

 

[YoursTrue]

Unfortunately you have to be very selective in what parts of the bible you apply if you want good effects (ignore the god approved genocide, stoning witches, that sort of thing). Even then look at all the different beliefs people hold who all say they follow the bible.

I've read the bible and I found it to be inconsistent and often self-contradictory; I certainly saw no coherent message.

Even if what you said was universally true (which it obviously isn't), that would only be evidence that the bible contained good advice, not evidence of any god.

That's where Jesus comes in. He straightened things out for those who believe and follow him.

 

[Cooky]

Unordered, not ordered, without order

is that any clearer?

To me, ordered means the laws of physics apply. So it seems like what you're saying is that as the universe expands, everything becomes disordered, to where things cease to make sense according to our current physics?

 

[Cooky]

...I've been having trouble understanding things lately. Sorry.

 

[ratiocinator]

That's where Jesus comes in. He straightened things out for those who believe and follow him.

Still nowhere near anything objective and, to demonstrate the fact, we still we get endless different denominations, cults, and sects that all say they follow the bible and Jesus but don't agree with each other.

 

[leroy]

There are around 100 changes in dna sequence from person to person. Very few are useful, some will not have an effect without other, later changes in local. Those changes have, over millions of years, produced the wealth of fauna and flora we see today. However it is estimated that more then 99% of all species to have lived are now extinct.

Interesting, but irrelevant.

I was just making sure that we mean the same thing when we use the term random

quote using my own words

Sure, to be a random mutation, means that an organism that would benefit from it, is not more likely receive it, than an organism that would benefit from it.

beneficial DNA changes do not happen more often simply because an organism could benefit from them.

quote from a source

random mutation: the consequences of a mutation have no influence whatsoever on the probability that this mutation will or will not occur. In other words, mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful. Thus, beneficial DNA changes do not happen more often simply because an organism could benefit from them. Moreover, even if an organism has acquired a beneficial mutation during its lifetime, the corresponding information will not flow back into the DNA in the organism's germline. This is a fundamental insight that Jean-Baptiste Lamarck got wrong and Charles Darwin got right
Genetic Mutation | Learn Science at Scitable

.

Is this what you mean when using the word random? From your definition it seems obvious that your answer would be “YES” but I just what to make sure, and prevent any potential straw man or misrepresentation of your view.

 

[ChristineM]

To me, ordered means the laws of physics apply. So it seems like what you're saying is that as the universe expands, everything becomes disordered, to where things cease to make sense according to our current physics?

It is quite the opposite. Where order was absolute the laws of physics break down

Entropy makes sense your misunderstanding doesn't. Does a pile of blown sand not make sense to physics. In 15 trillion years(ish) (assuming no other disaster) the universe will have decayed to heat death, maximum entropy. The whole scenario from a fraction of a second after the bb to the end of universe makes sense to the laws of physics

Ordered : regularity or disciplined

How regular or disciplined is the universe?

 

[ChristineM]

Interesting, but irrelevant.

I was just making sure that we mean the same thing when we use the term random

quote using my own words


quote from a source
.

Is this what you mean when using the word random? From your definition it seems obvious that your answer would be “YES” but I just what to make sure, and prevent any potential straw man or misrepresentation of your view.

Strange how when it pops your bubble it becomes irrelevant.

What?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That simply is not true, the current position of science is that there is strong evidence for universal common ancestry, but it has not been stablishes as an uncontrovertial fact (source
Was the universal common ancestry proved?)






That we share an ancestor with chimps is an obvious and almost uncontrovertial fact......but to say that therefore ALL life is related is a veeeeery big stredge.

Why?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Never said the wearing of clothes is an "evolutionary thing." I am saying, however, that humans are the ONLY ones among those that you call animals that wear clothes.

And ... ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

... and some people like fish produce their own ' antifreeze ' so to speak.

However, No animal prays. No animal says or gives ' thanks ' before eating. Animals are Not spiritual creation.
Humans were Not created to have a lifecycle, but designed to live forever. No recycling of humans or animals.
It was Satan and Adam who threw a monkey wrench into God's ' garden ' purpose.
This interruption in the ' garden ' does Not mean God has abandoned His garden purpose.
The passing of time has allowed for us (even though now imperfect) to be born and think who we would want as Sovereign over us before the ' garden ' is restored, and like Adam, who was originally offered everlasting life on a beautiful paradisical Earth, mankind will have that same opportunity under Christ's millennial reign over Earth.

I find it so strange when people make such matter-of-fact claims like this, that fly in the face of reality.

The fact of the matter is that humans do have a life cycle, like everything else on the planet.

 

[YoursTrue]

And ... ?

OK, I'll repeat. And help a little more. The BIBLE says that God made clothes for Adam & Eve. Interesting. Written yet so many years ago -- way before evolution became a concept. Nowhere in the Bible does it say God clothed animals. Non-human animals (I say this for your way of defining things) remain naked, they are not distressed about being naked, they evidently do not have the capacity to make clothing for themselves. Or feel the need to. Is it mental evolution on humans' part? Animals are happy,all of them -- birds, apes, snakes, penguins, to go around without clothes. Humans are the only beings that feel the need to put on clothes and that have the capability of making them. Quite a different proposition with humans and "other species."

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK, I'll repeat. And help a little more. The BIBLE says that God made clothes for Adam & Eve. Interesting. Written yet so many years ago -- way before evolution became a concept. Nowhere in the Bible does it say God clothed animals. Non-human animals (I say this for your way of defining things) remain naked, they are not distressed about being naked, they evidently do not have the capacity to make clothing for themselves. Or feel the need to. Is it mental evolution on humans' part? Animals are happy,all of them -- birds, apes, snakes, penguins, to go around without clothes. Humans are the only beings that feel the need to put on clothes and that have the capability of making them. Quite a different proposition with humans and "other species."

I read what you said. I'm wondering what why it's relevant and what your point is.

 

[YoursTrue]

I find it so strange when people make such matter-of-fact claims like this, that fly in the face of reality.

The fact of the matter is that humans do have a life cycle, like everything else on the planet.

Yes, humans are the ONLY ONES who are known to consider eternal life. NOT animals. We have a life cycle, destined to die right now. But it wasn't always that way, and it will not be that way in the future. Men pay for funerals. Animals do not. Another big difference between the acknowledgement of life and death between animals and humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

I read what you said. I'm wondering what why it's relevant and what your point is.

Because -- there is an unequivocal big gap between the thinking ability of men (humans) and apes. And ants.

 

[ChristineM]

Because -- there is an unequivocal big gap between the thinking ability of men (humans) and apes. And ants.

Ain't evolution great?