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

[ChristineM]

I think the ^ above^ is useful information, and even in the Genesis account where lower life forms are mentioned there is the possibility God could have used some from of evolution in those creative works, however, a BIG however, in Scripture God did Not use any form of evolution in the creation of man. In other words, No way did man evolve.
No gecko, sloth, bamboo shark, etc. will ever evolve into an intelligent life as humans are intelligent.

Biology and genetics shows you are mistaken.

 

[ChristineM]

Or, to me there is ' credulity ' ( blind faith ) because there is No evidence.
I find as physical evidence is the existence of the physical or material Bible.
I find as physical evidence are the physical people who follow the Bible on a grand international scale.
I find as physical evidence what is recorded at Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8 is done just as foretold it would be done.
So, faith ( trust / confidence ) even in seeing the order of the universe shows a Higher Power.

Thats faith for ya.

P.s.the universe from the smallest quantum particle to the largest galactic supercluster and beyond is far from ordered and is becoming more disordered as time passes and entropy happens

 

[Cooky]

Thats faith for ya.

P.s.the universe from the smallest quantum particle to the largest galactic supercluster and beyond is far from ordered and is becoming more disordered as time passes and entropy happens

What do you mean by "disordered"?

 

[leroy]

Absolutely relevant


Random : proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern.

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.

Agree?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Lol.. i know the difference probably much more than you do
I'll ask you a few questions before i give you my answer if it is okay.
(Please try to answer seriously.. this is not some theistic trick to avoid your question, rather a sort of a way for me to understand your way of thought)

You can answer very shortly.. i don't need a detailed scientific explanation for each of them. i know the science behind each of these questions , i just need to understand what you mean by objective evidence.

What objective evidence do you have for atoms?
What objective evidence do you have for particles?
What objective evidence do you have for quantum physics?
What objective evidence do you have for gravity?
What objective evidence do you have for dark energy?
What objective evidence do you have for energy?
What objective evidence do you have for death?
What objective evidence do you have for thoughts?
What objective evidence do you have for imagination?
What objective evidence do you have for anger?
What objective evidence do you have for fear?
What objective evidence do you have for courage?
What objective evidence do you have for randomness?

Thanks

First, it is rude to answer a question with a question. You are just evading my question. That just means all you have is subjective evidence from your mind.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Thats faith for ya.
P.s.the universe from the smallest quantum particle to the largest galactic supercluster and beyond is far from ordered and is becoming more disordered as time passes and entropy happens

Huh?______ as in 'winding down' (entrophy), when I find we are re-assured that the heavens are expanding.
Expanding as Isaiah 40:22 B; Isaiah 42:5 lets us know the heavens being stretched out.
Expanding as Jeremiah 10:12 says about the heavens being stretched out.
I do wonder if Stephen Hawking believed the opposite of that ________.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wearing of clothes is not an evolutionary thing. Clothes sid not evolve, they were made to combat weather conditions.

Human apes, as you call them, are the ONLY ones of animals (your term for humans) that make clothes to "combat weather conditions." What a difference of weather conditions, I suppose you would say between human apes and ape-apes. Although some humanape groups wear little to no clothing, they have the capacity to make clothes if they felt the need to. Ape-apes do not know how to make clothes, and they do not make jewelry to put on as some humanapes that go pretty much naked do. Quite a jump of inventive ability between humanapes and ape-apes. The ONLY group which you classify as animals that cover themselves up in clothes are humanapes. Never has one ape-ape made clothing to protect against the weather elements.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wearing of clothes is not an evolutionary thing. Clothes sid not evolve, they were made to combat weather conditions.

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.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wearing of clothes is not an evolutionary thing. Clothes sid not evolve, they were made to combat weather conditions.

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.

 

[ratiocinator]

I guess i did if we are in a disagreement.
A proof of God is the same as proof of gravity or dark energy or dark matter.
We have a clear evidence it is there, we simply call it God. We can't see gravity per-say, we can only see how it affects us.
The same goes for God.
You can observe God. it is impossible.
You can observe its affect. It is very clear and very objective once you understand how to look at it.

So what is this objective evidence for a god then - and which god?

How is it that all the people who set out to study god(s) come to such different conclusions, whereas those who study (say) gravity come to the same conclusion (future speculations aside)? This flatly contradicts your claim that the evidence is similarly objective.

There are certain rules that are described that once studied (a very long study) can give you more than enough evidence that ANYONE can understand.

So what are the rules?

Can we conclude that this god doesn't really want to be found or get its message across? If not, why isn't it obvious to everybody?

 

[ChristineM]

What do you mean by "disordered"?

Unordered, not ordered, without order

is that any clearer?

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Agree?

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.

 

[ChristineM]

Huh?______ as in 'winding down' (entrophy), when I find we are re-assured that the heavens are expanding.
Expanding as Isaiah 40:22 B; Isaiah 42:5 lets us know the heavens being stretched out.
Expanding as Jeremiah 10:12 says about the heavens being stretched out.
I do wonder if Stephen Hawking believed the opposite of that ________.

It seems the universe has been expanding far longer than the bible. However, reading those verses does not imply inflation but rather, laid out. Only after science discovered the universe was expanding did apologetics come up with the interpretation now used by some (not all) religious people.

 

[ChristineM]

P

Human apes, as you call them, are the ONLY ones of animals (your term for humans) that make clothes to "combat weather conditions." What a difference of weather conditions, I suppose you would say between human apes and ape-apes. Although some humanape groups wear little to no clothing, they have the capacity to make clothes if they felt the need to. Ape-apes do not know how to make clothes, and they do not make jewelry to put on as some humanapes that go pretty much naked do. Quite a jump of inventive ability between humanapes and ape-apes. The ONLY group which you classify as animals that cover themselves up in clothes are humanapes. Never has one ape-ape made clothing to protect against the weather elements.

Animals are not generally as adventurous as humans, those that are are older than humanity and have evolved to the varying conditions.

This has been happening in humans to some degree with the changes in melanin levels the as people gave moved from equatorial regions.

One ape has made clothing, the human
Also dont forget the human (mostly religious) loathing of nudity.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Yes, so? Elephants can smell water 3 miles away, the scarlet jellyfish can restart its own lifecycle. Hippopotamus sweat their own sunblock.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yes, so? Elephants can smell water 3 miles away, the scarlet jellyfish can restart its own lifecycle. Hippopotamus sweat their own sunblock.

... 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.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It seems the universe has been expanding far longer than the bible. However, reading those verses does not imply inflation but rather, laid out. Only after science discovered the universe was expanding did apologetics come up with the interpretation now used by some (not all) religious people.

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.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So what is this objective evidence for a god then - and which god?
How is it that all the people who set out to study god(s) come to such different conclusions, whereas those who study (say) gravity come to the same conclusion (future speculations aside)? This flatly contradicts your claim that the evidence is similarly objective.
So what are the rules?
Can we conclude that this god doesn't really want to be found or get its message across? If not, why isn't it obvious to everybody?

I would say ' which God ' would be the ' Creator God of the Bible ' as per Revelation 4:11
People come to different conclusions because as Jesus taught only his 'sheep' would hear his voice.
Even in Jesus' day the clergy class was corrupted, so it should be No surprise that they are corrupted today.
God is only a prayer away. His message is found in the Holy Scriptures.
By the international proclaiming about God's kingdom government of Daniel 2:44, which is now being done on a grand-international scale as never before in history, shows that God's message is getting across just as Jesus said it would be done at Matthew 24:14 and Acts of the Apostles 1:8.

 

[ratiocinator]

I would say ' which God ' would be the ' Creator God of the Bible ' as per Revelation 4:11
People come to different conclusions because as Jesus taught only his 'sheep' would hear his voice.
Even in Jesus' day the clergy class was corrupted, so it should be No surprise that they are corrupted today.
God is only a prayer away. His message is found in the Holy Scriptures.
By the international proclaiming about God's kingdom government of Daniel 2:44, which is now being done on a grand-international scale as never before in history, shows that God's message is getting across just as Jesus said it would be done at Matthew 24:14 and Acts of the Apostles 1:8.

So why should I take any of this seriously? I was responding to @Segev Moran who claimed there was evidence similar to things like gravity. Can you provide any objective evidence?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So why should I take any of this seriously? I was responding to @Segev Moran who claimed there was evidence similar to things like gravity. Can you provide any objective evidence?

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.