• 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!

The Miracle of Water.

nPeace

Veteran Member
Why are you equating atheists with "evolutionists?" They're not one in the same.
I am not.
I know.
"atheist and evolutionist"
and
conjunction
  1. used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences that are to be taken jointly.
    "bread and butter"
    synonyms: together with, along with, with, as well as, in addition to, also;

  2. used to introduce an additional comment or interjection.
    "if it came to a choice—and this was the worst thing—she would turn her back on her parents"
You do realize that all people who practice religion don't all think as you do and reject evolution, right?
When I need an education, I'll know where to find all the tutors on RF. Thanks.

From my experiences, the people who tend to reject evolution are those who don't understand it.
Were any of those people biologist, chemist, and other ists? What do you think their reason is for rejecting it?
Oh wait. Don't tell me. They want to believe in a book of fairytale.
What about the ones that don't believe or follow the book? Wait. I know. They need to believe in some god.
But they are scientists that believe in god(s) and believe in evolution.

People are capable of being brainwashed at any point in their lives.
It could be a result of brainwashing to "believe in God." Look at the Jim Jones cult where grown adults gave up all their possessions and moved to South America because Jim Jones painted himself as some kind of Messiah. They all believed in it so much that they poisoned their own children and then themselves just to get to Heaven. People can and will believe pretty much anything.
Yes. That's true. People can and will believe pretty much anything.

Why do you think atheistic upbringing involves brainwashing? Do you have some examples of what you are talking about?
Hitler did it, and I am sure this goes on in many homes.
Seminary students in China are being forced to have “absolute obedience” to the Communist Party and to deny God.

Of course there will always be the deniers, but what does it matter? We know it happens, and anyone who really does not believe it is playing the ostrich, or living under a rock.

Yes it will continue. And people will continue to join the church of Scientology, and Islam and Raelism and whatever else there is on offer.

Notice how membership numbers speak nothing to the truth of the claims being made by the various religions?

This doesn't follow from what you've said above. How skeptical are you of Raelism? How about scientology? Are you narrow-minded for being skeptical of all claims made by all religions?

And again, I don't see people who are skeptical about claims they hear that are lacking in evidence are narrow-minded people. They simply don't accept claims based on say-so.
Why don't you accept the claims of Islam, for example?

What do "they" say about belief in God?
I'm talking about accepting things without evidence, not about denying something you can actually examine for yourself.
You did not live way back in ancient times, but you are willing to parrot what people say as to the concept of God.
Persons who believe in God, according to the ancient writings, do so by examining the evidence, based on what is written historically.

The people who wrote the Bible knew far, far less about the world than anybody living today. They didn't have any special knowledge that we don't have.

We have more knowledge today about the world we live in, than any other population of humans in the history of our existence. To think that ancient peoples knew more about the universe than we do today is really a stretch of the imagination. Not to mention that if all these claims are based on knowledge and experience, then the existence of God should be easily demonstrable. Yet somehow, nobody has managed to do it in all these thousands and thousands of years.
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I am not.
I know.
"atheist and evolutionist"
and
conjunction
  1. used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences that are to be taken jointly.
    "bread and butter"
    synonyms: together with, along with, with, as well as, in addition to, also;
  2. used to introduce an additional comment or interjection.
    "if it came to a choice—and this was the worst thing—she would turn her back on her parents"
Thanks for the dictionary definition but that doesn't address anything.
You're lumping "atheists" and "evolutionists" into the same category. Why do you assume only atheists accept evolution?

When I need an education, I'll know where to find all the tutors on RF. Thanks.
Given what you said in your last post, it sounds like you do need an education on this.

Were any of those people biologist, chemist, and other ists?
It's usually creationists who reject it.

Most scientists accept the evidence for evolution. Biologists know that biology and evolution are deeply interconnected.
What do you think their reason is for rejecting it?
Oh wait. Don't tell me. They want to believe in a book of fairytale.
I just told you. Because they don't understand it. The evidence for that becomes apparent when they try to talk about evolution.

What about the ones that don't believe or follow the book? Wait. I know. They need to believe in some god.
But they are scientists that believe in god(s) and believe in evolution.
Yes, there are scientists that believe in god. Francis Collins is one of them. What you will notice about his work though, is that he keeps his God beliefs out of it and sticks to the facts. He doesn't insert God into scientific explanations.

Yes. That's true. People can and will believe pretty much anything.
Indeed.

Hitler did it, and I am sure this goes on in many homes.
Seminary students in China are being forced to have “absolute obedience” to the Communist Party and to deny God.
Of course there will always be the deniers, but what does it matter? We know it happens, and anyone who really does not believe it is playing the ostrich, or living under a rock.
That's called state worship wherein citizens are forced to worship the state and the leader as Gods. Kind of like how the North Korean people are forced to worship their dead leader as a God.

Do you seriously think these examples of state worship are comparable to the way regular atheist people in the western world raise their children? Come on.

What kind of atheist brainwashing was Hitler involved in?

I'm talking about accepting things without evidence, not about denying something you can actually examine for yourself.
Great. I don't accept things without evidence.

You did not live way back in ancient times, but you are willing to parrot what people say as to the concept of God.
I have no reason to believe that people living in ancient times had access to any special kind of knowledge that we don't have access to today. In fact, all evidence points to them having far less knowledge about the world around them than we do today.

Also, you've failed to address the point about people from other ancient religions having "knowledge" that their religions were true as well. Well, they can't all be true. But they could all be false.

What am I parroting about what people say as to the concept of God?

Persons who believe in God, according to the ancient writings, do so by examining the evidence, based on what is written historically.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
Great. What's the evidence?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
There you go again this concept of proof. You will not get absolute proof for complex problems such as evolution. In fact one of the most impressive aspects of Science is that ideas can be challenged and newer information can correct concepts. That is its sciences strength. What is undeniable is how much overwhelming evidence the is for evolution and how much it explains.

Oh yeah...that "proof" thing. How dare we demand proof from those who claim to have it, and yet can't provide any......o_O

We are the ones with a "belief" system based on faith AND our interpretation of the same evidence that you have. We see undeniable design everywhere in nature but science students have been indoctrinated from the get go, to "believe" things that cannot be "proven"......yet to deny it is to arouse the ire of the brainwashed with counter claims of brainwashing. :eek:
Its the greatest joke in the history of humanity.

What is the absolute proof for creationists? A myth written by people who wrote the myth down after ages of oral tradition which never repeated exactly the same over time and never intended to be an explanation of our world.

Who told you it was a myth? Have you ever examined the Bible just for the long range prophesies it contains. Things that were foretold sometimes thousands of years in advance. Did you know that the current state of the world was foretold by Jesus two thousand years ago as evidence that the way this world is governed would experience a drastic change? The 'one world government' that has been mooted for decades now, will be mankind's last attempt at governance that will bring things under control.....it will be offered as a solution that will bring "peace and security" to this troublesome system of independent nations in conflict, but it is totalitarian in its structure. Be prepared...it is coming, 'jack boots' and all.....and nothing will stop it.

So lets look at proof again in terms of evidence. Evolution- impressive evidence explaining the geologic record, coordinates with ecological theory, improved with time as new research continues to be supportive of Darwin's theory discovered by Wallace at nearly the same time from studying the real world. Or you have a myth written from generations of people telling the story as best they remember then written down by humans with no evidence from the actual world unable to explain what is found in the actual world. One with evidence and one without.

You see what you have written? "Impressive evidence"....? To whom? The indoctrinated, of course. You've swallowed loads of myth yourselves and you can't even see it. Studying the real world through the evolutionary lens, does not allow you to see what is obvious to us.

You acknowledge laws that have no lawmaker....you gaze admiringly at the universe and the planets in our solar system that are so precisely ordered that there is no variance since time immemorial in the way they behave, and yet it is all just a series of fortunate coincidences that brought it all about. If you want to believe that, then the mountains of "evidence" (educated guesswork that contains about 25% actual proof) will reinforce what you want to believe......it is the intelligent thing to do...right? But at the end of the day, the actual evidence presented to support macro-evolution does not amount to a hill of beans.

Which one would you choose? I can see by the little round figure searching for answers you are still confused. Do not worry though there are many here that will help you understand. Start with one point at time and avoid long narratives that confuse ideas, that may help. Where do you want to start?

I am not the least bit confused because I see what you cannot....or should I say "will not"? You still have this strange notion that I need educating and if you just present your "evidence" that I will fall down and worship evolution and "see the light"!
indifferent0028.gif


You are sadly mistaken. You see, it isn't the evidence per se....its the interpretation.
Better educated men have tried for years to present their "evidence" for evolution and its the same old thing time after time.....you cannot see the fundamental flaws in science's basic argument. Think of it as an impressive skyscraper with a foundation made of matchsticks...because that is the way I see it.

Some of the greatest advocates of religious naturalism were from Christian dominated lives studying to teach theology then finding Christianity to be inadequate. So it goes both ways.

You don't seem to understand that the Bible warns of a powerful enemy who is able to "blind" people to the truth.....but only if they want to be. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) If people want an excuse to put God away, then he will let them find all the excuses they need.....because he has as much interest in them as they have in him.

If "Christians" want to sell out to science...he will let them do that too. In the Bible's scenario, the end justifies the means. We are all making personal decisions about our own future.
confused0006.gif
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Oh yeah...that "proof" thing. How dare we demand proof from those who claim to have it, and yet can't provide any......o_O

We are the ones with a "belief" system based on faith AND our interpretation of the same evidence that you have. We see undeniable design everywhere in nature but science students have been indoctrinated from the get go, to "believe" things that cannot be "proven"......yet to deny it is to arouse the ire of the brainwashed with counter claims of brainwashing. :eek:
Its the greatest joke in the history of humanity.



Who told you it was a myth? Have you ever examined the Bible just for the long range prophesies it contains. Things that were foretold sometimes thousands of years in advance. Did you know that the current state of the world was foretold by Jesus two thousand years ago as evidence that the way this world is governed would experience a drastic change? The 'one world government' that has been mooted for decades now, will be mankind's last attempt at governance that will bring things under control.....it will be offered as a solution that will bring "peace and security" to this troublesome system of independent nations in conflict, but it is totalitarian in its structure. Be prepared...it is coming, 'jack boots' and all.....and nothing will stop it.



You see what you have written? "Impressive evidence"....? To whom? The indoctrinated, of course. You've swallowed loads of myth yourselves and you can't even see it. Studying the real world through the evolutionary lens, does not allow you to see what is obvious to us.

You acknowledge laws that have no lawmaker....you gaze admiringly at the universe and the planets in our solar system that are so precisely ordered that there is no variance since time immemorial in the way they behave, and yet it is all just a series of fortunate coincidences that brought it all about. If you want to believe that, then the mountains of "evidence" (educated guesswork that contains about 25% actual proof) will reinforce what you want to believe......it is the intelligent thing to do...right? But at the end of the day, the actual evidence presented to support macro-evolution does not amount to a hill of beans.



I am not the least bit confused because I see what you cannot....or should I say "will not"? You still have this strange notion that I need educating and if you just present your "evidence" that I will fall down and worship evolution and "see the light"!
indifferent0028.gif


You are sadly mistaken. You see, it isn't the evidence per se....its the interpretation.
Better educated men have tried for years to present their "evidence" for evolution and its the same old thing time after time.....you cannot see the fundamental flaws in science's basic argument. Think of it as an impressive skyscraper with a foundation made of matchsticks...because that is the way I see it.



You don't seem to understand that the Bible warns of a powerful enemy who is able to "blind" people to the truth.....but only if they want to be. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) If people want an excuse to put God away, then he will let them find all the excuses they need.....because he has as much interest in them as they have in him.

If "Christians" want to sell out to science...he will let them do that too. In the Bible's scenario, the end justifies the means. We are all making personal decisions about our own future.
confused0006.gif
I see so even if the evidence is correct and overwhelming it will never matter what is found since you go by belief alone. So why do you even argue about evolution or try to discuss scientific ideas if they are meaningless to you. Just say " the bible says so and that's all that matters". That would be a nice concise argument without the long drawn out discussions about evidence in too simplified a form to have meaning. Your post would be short and to the point. By the way Christians brought back classical thinking and started science in the western world.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
But at the end of the day, the actual evidence presented to support macro-evolution does not amount to a hill of beans.
And yet after repeatedly being asked for even one shred of evidence that "micro-evolution" somehow miraculously stops before becoming "macro-evolution", which you and your ilk have never produced here, you have the unmitigated hypocrisy to post the above. After link upon link given to you to show that "speciation", the evolution of "kinds" (new species being formed), has been observed, not speculated, you, otoh, have produced nothing but beliefs that you then state as if they were facts.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I see so even if the evidence is correct and overwhelming it will never matter what is found since you go by belief alone. So why do you even argue about evolution or try to discuss scientific ideas if they are meaningless to you. Just say " the bible says so and that's all that matters". That would be a nice concise argument without the long drawn out discussions about evidence in too simplified a form to have meaning. Your post would be short and to the point.

You took no notice of a single thing I said.....see, you yourself are a victim of your own indoctrination, so no matter how practical the alternative is, or how logical, you will never accept it because it is not "scientific" enough. How do you know that the Creator is not the very one who gave scientists something to study....along with intelligence, ability to read, communicate and reason, a brain that can process complex information gained through the senses...that just happened to invent themselves. How many fortunate coincidences would it take to get from single celled organism to humans? Way too many for me.

Do you not understand that you see science the same way I see God. You are welcome to your god who has nothing to offer humanity but more of the same.

By the way Christians brought back classical thinking and started science in the western world.

I have no problem with science facts....I have a problem with science fiction....you science devotees can't seem to see a difference. :shrug:
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
And yet after repeatedly being asked for even one shred of evidence that "micro-evolution" somehow miraculously stops before becoming "macro-evolution", which you and your ilk have never produced here, you have the unmitigated hypocrisy to post the above.

Unmitigated hypocrisy? Name calling again? Is this a favorite thing with you?

Where in the Bible will I see a reference to God beginning the process of evolution?

Trying to marry direct creation with evolution is like straddling two horses going in opposite directions.....you have to pick one....and the direction in which it is headed, may not be the destination you want.

I have provided my arguments for the genetic barriers that exist in all creatures, quite a few times in various threads....sorry you missed them.

After link upon link given to you to show that "speciation", the evolution of "kinds" (new species being formed), has been observed, not speculated, you, otoh, have produced nothing but beliefs that you then state as if they were facts.

Oh yes..."speciation"...it seems to me that we have had this conversation a few times too many. Speciation is what science has observed in a lab.....they experimented with fruit flies and stickleback fish and lo and behold.....a new "species" resulted.....what is a new species metis? Is it a new creature? NO! it is a new variety of the same creature. Creatures stay the same reproductively until there is an environmental change.....only then will they adapt to perpetuate their "kind". They do not become a new "kind" because reproductive programming will ensure that they remain in their own classification.

Don't we see the same thing with bacteria? They adapted to antibiotics by making themselves immune to them. This adaptive process did not change the bacteria into a new organism, but gave it the ability to survive...it was still a bacteria, just like the fruit flies were still fruit flies and the fish were still fish.

You just don't see the problem, do you? Adaptation does not change taxonomy. No creature will ever become the start of a new family of creatures by minor adaptive changes. They will adapt to survive, just like the finches and the iguanas did on the Galapagos Islands when Darwin observed them. He still saw finches and iguanas...didn't he?

Can science show us solid evidence that branching ever took place except in their imagination? What conclusive evidence is there for common ancestry? Diagrams they have...but real evidence is in very short supply.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
You took no notice of a single thing I said.....see, you yourself are a victim of your own indoctrination, so no matter how practical the alternative is, or how logical, you will never accept it because it is not "scientific" enough. How do you know that the Creator is not the very one who gave scientists something to study....along with intelligence, ability to read, communicate and reason, a brain that an process complex information gained through the senses...that just happened to invent themselves. How many fortunate coincidences would it take to get from single celled organism to humans? Way too many for me.

Do you not understand that you see science the same way I see God. You are welcome to your god who has nothing to offer humanity but more of the same.



I have no problem with science facts....I have a problem with science fiction....you science devotees can't seem to see a difference. :shrug:

Actually I don't see science the same way you see god. I suspect I see the nature the way you see the god you believe in. Nature gave us life and a world to support us, that is more than enough. Science is continuous allowing us to understand ourselves and the world we live in but it is only part of the way we understand our world. We experience the world in many ways that science cannot. There is aesthetics and beauty to our world. It can be depicted in art and poetry. We can experience the interconnectedness and have appreciation for natural world around us. Everything we know and experience is in the natural world which has the creative force that created us and all the other living things we share this planet with without the need of supernatural being to explain our world.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Nature gave us life and a world to support us, that is more than enough.

Who or what is "nature"....define that for me please and then tell me if there was a time when nature did not exist.

Everything we know and experience is in the natural world which has the creative force that created us and all the other living things we share this planet with without the need of supernatural being to explain our world.

"The creative force that created us"....seriously, do you hear yourself? That creative force is what we call "God"....what is your problem with "supernatural"?

All it means is..."(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

Is it somehow a dirty word to the science buffs...why? Because they can't explain it or understand it?......so tell me what is so abhorrent about things that science can't yet understand? Do you honestly believe that scientists know all there is to know? Science is in its infancy....it knows a little about a lot of things, but what is yet to know?

Denial doesn't mean that something you don't understand, can't exist.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
The designer designed the genes to do exactly what they were designed to do, and the misuse, or mismanagement of the proper functions of life, by humans, contributed to the problems in that design.

You have no idea what the proper function of life is. Other than the natural functions dictated by the natural laws of nature. How does one mismanage their genes, or decide how to express their proper function? The Bible is a foreign 2000+ year old book. It is a collection of stories that is a, man-made, man-compiled, man-edited, man-contracted, man-selected, and a man-written multilingual book of myths, stories, and superstations. All designed to entertain the minds of children, and control the minds of adult peasants and labourers. Why would anyone today still believe in talking animals, acts of miracles, Gods angels and demons, resurrections, heaven and hell, creation stories, or that they must repent from some imaginary sin to go to some imaginary place? Has the world truly gone mad? Maybe it is just part of the human condition, to believe that something greater than self exists.

Ancient civilizations created Gods to fill in the gaps of their own ignorance. This apparently hasn't changed much. If you believe that your beliefs are true for you, then why can't you just keep it to yourself? Why do you need to spread it to your children, or the other vulnerable and helpless minds in society? Why are you so threatened by anyone who asks for one objective bit of evidence to justify your belief? Why do you attack skeptics and Atheists, as being "narrow minded"? Why do you imply that teaching your children to use their own critical thinking abilities before making decisions, somehow justifies teaching children to simply conform to to the beliefs of the majority without question? What are you so frightened of? The Uncomfortable Truth? If I want anyone to believe anything I say, I would gladly provide evidence to support my claims. Religious beliefs does not require any objective evidence at all. So it is not Atheists and Skeptics that are "narrow minded". At least they are only waiting for the evidence to support the knowledge claims by Believers. For Believers, faith will always trump reason. Remember you're not just saying that you believe that a God exists. You are saying that you know that a God exists. Skeptics and Atheists are asking you to provide that knowledge. If you don't have any knowledge, then this is only your unjustified, and subjective belief. And, you should keep it to yourself.

I just don't get it. The mind is such a terrible thing to waste.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
And yet after repeatedly being asked for even one shred of evidence that "micro-evolution" somehow miraculously stops before becoming "macro-evolution", which you and your ilk have never produced here, you have the unmitigated hypocrisy to post the above. After link upon link given to you to show that "speciation", the evolution of "kinds" (new species being formed), has been observed, not speculated, you, otoh, have produced nothing but beliefs that you then state as if they were facts.

Everyone knows that macroEvolution takes millions of years for anyone to be able to observe its effects directly. Unless you plan on seeing what humans will become in the next few million years, it is a very safe position to hide behind. Of course it ignores the convergence of all the physical, chemical, genetic, archeological, paleontological, anatomical, and radiological evidence, that actually justifies the models used to form rational and consistent conclusions(inductive and deductive reasoning).

Where is the evidence for the exact moment when your child stops being an infant, and becomes a toddler? Where is the evidence for the exact moment when the adolescents becomes an adults? Like all biological growths, macroEvolution is the result of a series of micro-Evolutions. Asking where one stops and where one begins, is a nonsense question. Like asking what was before time? Or, asking for evidence of the exact moment when a dinosaur became a bird(ignoring the many transitional species). This is also a nonsense question. But this is another safe claim because no single definitive species could possibly exist, because that is not how evolution works. Evolution is the smallest of gradual changes occurring over time. Many times one or two genetic mutations over hundreds of thousands of years.

Since you seem to believe in kinds, you should fair better than this guy in the "phylogeny challenge".


To understand this challenge better see below.


In case Aron goes a bit too fast, let me help. In the most simplest terms, show me any KIND of life(plant or animal), that does not belong to an even larger KIND of life, both morphologically and genetically? For example, a whale and a pine tree are genetically and morphologically related. If they are different and separate kinds, then they both must have their own ancestral kind, which can't be related to each other in any way.This of course this is not the case. In fact, at some evolutionary/ancestral level, all life is genetically, morphologically, and physically related to each other. Therefore there is only one KIND of life, and it is called LIFE. But there are many different types of life. These can be categorized, based on the simplest to the most complex features, and from the many similar features to the least similar features. What this means is that one KIND can never become another KIND. You can never outgrow your ancestors, no matter how many times you differentiate.

Even if science couldn't produce any evidence that demonstrates that Evolution is clearly the best explanation of how life evolved, your evidence must stand on its own merits. It wouldn't be simply correct by default. That would still be an argument from ignorance. So what is the creationist's research undertaken? What is the science behind the knowledge claims? Surely, you can present the same level of evidence against Evolution, as scientist can present for Evolution?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
The designer designed the genes to do exactly what they were designed to do, and the misuse, or mismanagement of the proper functions of life, by humans, contributed to the problems in that design.

So circular an argument is not often seen.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Who or what is "nature"....define that for me please and then tell me if there was a time when nature did not exist.



"The creative force that created us"....seriously, do you hear yourself? That creative force is what we call "God"....what is your problem with "supernatural"?

All it means is..."(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

Is it somehow a dirty word to the science buffs...why? Because they can't explain it or understand it?......so tell me what is so abhorrent about things that science can't yet understand? Do you honestly believe that scientists know all there is to know? Science is in its infancy....it knows a little about a lot of things, but what is yet to know?

Denial doesn't mean that something you don't understand, can't exist.
Nature is everything that exists, it is the ultimate, we are a part of it and created by the natural forces of our universe. It is a word to describe what is and not what we want to believe. Not a being but the universe itself. It has always been and always will be but also always in a state of change. I do not know what it was like before the what we think happened at the time described as the big bank nor can I say what it will be.

The creative natural forces that created us do not need a god a goddess to work, we have all the evidence in the world that these forces created everything and continuing to create new things. There is no is there any proof that it needs a god or a goddess created anything other than our desire for there to be one.

Actually supernatural means beyond the natural world which is all that we know. There may be other dimensions in our universe that we cannot find which would still be of the natural world if they exist but yet undiscovered. We do not know everything and may be yet surprised, but we also do not know there is a god or goddess except in peoples desires. It would be helpful if the gods or goddesses would visit us humans sometime and explain about the supernatural world since we cannot discover it ourselves.

There is nothing abhorrent about things that science does not explain. There are many experiences humans have and things about the natural world we do not know. If someone experiences a god or goddess that is personal and wonderful but the arguments you are talking about have to do with the natural world. Evolution is a natural process and science is helping us learn about that process. The story of creation or a biblical flood or the creation of turtle island are stories with meaning but still stories. When these stories are used to explain what actually happened is where the problem develops. No denial and we should all be open for possibilities but there is no evidence for instance that the biblical creation story is the actual way the earth was created. I will admit though the debates about evolution has allowed me to learn from many people in the forum of new discoveries supporting evolution and it is always good to have a challenge to your beliefs. I have learned new things about evolution from the challenges you have presented. Always good to think.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Oh yeah...that "proof" thing. How dare we demand proof from those who claim to have it, and yet can't provide any......o_O

We are the ones with a "belief" system based on faith AND our interpretation of the same evidence that you have. We see undeniable design everywhere in nature but science students have been indoctrinated from the get go, to "believe" things that cannot be "proven"......yet to deny it is to arouse the ire of the brainwashed with counter claims of brainwashing. :eek:
Its the greatest joke in the history of humanity.



Who told you it was a myth? Have you ever examined the Bible just for the long range prophesies it contains. Things that were foretold sometimes thousands of years in advance. Did you know that the current state of the world was foretold by Jesus two thousand years ago as evidence that the way this world is governed would experience a drastic change? The 'one world government' that has been mooted for decades now, will be mankind's last attempt at governance that will bring things under control.....it will be offered as a solution that will bring "peace and security" to this troublesome system of independent nations in conflict, but it is totalitarian in its structure. Be prepared...it is coming, 'jack boots' and all.....and nothing will stop it.



You see what you have written? "Impressive evidence"....? To whom? The indoctrinated, of course. You've swallowed loads of myth yourselves and you can't even see it. Studying the real world through the evolutionary lens, does not allow you to see what is obvious to us.

You acknowledge laws that have no lawmaker....you gaze admiringly at the universe and the planets in our solar system that are so precisely ordered that there is no variance since time immemorial in the way they behave, and yet it is all just a series of fortunate coincidences that brought it all about. If you want to believe that, then the mountains of "evidence" (educated guesswork that contains about 25% actual proof) will reinforce what you want to believe......it is the intelligent thing to do...right? But at the end of the day, the actual evidence presented to support macro-evolution does not amount to a hill of beans.



I am not the least bit confused because I see what you cannot....or should I say "will not"? You still have this strange notion that I need educating and if you just present your "evidence" that I will fall down and worship evolution and "see the light"!
indifferent0028.gif


You are sadly mistaken. You see, it isn't the evidence per se....its the interpretation.
Better educated men have tried for years to present their "evidence" for evolution and its the same old thing time after time.....you cannot see the fundamental flaws in science's basic argument. Think of it as an impressive skyscraper with a foundation made of matchsticks...because that is the way I see it.

You don't seem to understand that the Bible warns of a powerful enemy who is able to "blind" people to the truth.....but only if they want to be. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) If people want an excuse to put God away, then he will let them find all the excuses they need.....because he has as much interest in them as they have in him.

If "Christians" want to sell out to science...he will let them do that too. In the Bible's scenario, the end justifies the means. We are all making personal decisions about our own future.
confused0006.gif
I'm sorry Deeje, but you do not look at the evidence, not in any sense of the word. In fact, you dismiss it and wave it away, and instead focus on photos of nature and stick with the shallowest possible investigation of the natural world that I've ever seen.

Evolution is a fact.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Thanks for the dictionary definition but that doesn't address anything.
You're lumping "atheists" and "evolutionists" into the same category. Why do you assume only atheists accept evolution?
:facepalm: Bread and butter. So bread is butter.

Given what you said in your last post, it sounds like you do need an education on this.


Some people will go to any length to avoid a logical argument - twist your words to reflect something entirely different to what you say.
My post looked like this:
Were any of those people biologist, chemist, and other ists? What do you think their reason is for rejecting it?
Oh wait. Don't tell me. They want to believe in a book of fairytale.
What about the ones that don't believe or follow the book? Wait. I know. They need to believe in some god.
But they are scientists that believe in god(s) and believe in evolution.


You broke it up to this:
nPeace said:
Were any of those people biologist, chemist, and other ists?
It's usually creationists who reject it.

Most scientists accept the evidence for evolution. Biologists know that biology and evolution are deeply interconnected.

nPeace said:
What do you think their reason is for rejecting it?
Oh wait. Don't tell me. They want to believe in a book of fairytale.
I just told you. Because they don't understand it. The evidence for that becomes apparent when they try to talk about evolution.
SkepticThinker, isn't that dishonest. Or perhaps you made an honest mistake. Did you?

Yes, there are scientists that believe in god. Francis Collins is one of them. What you will notice about his work though, is that he keeps his God beliefs out of it and sticks to the facts. He doesn't insert God into scientific explanations.
This does not address my argument, since you decided to break it up into pieces... it has no bearing.


Indeed.


That's called state worship wherein citizens are forced to worship the state and the leader as Gods. Kind of like how the North Korean people are forced to worship their dead leader as a God.

Do you seriously think these examples of state worship are comparable to the way regular atheist people in the western world raise their children? Come on.
So a 7 year old being pressured to feel that she is ignorant and stupid to believe what her parents are teaching her about God and the Bible, by an atheistic authoritative figure, she is taught to respect, is nothing?

What kind of atheist brainwashing was Hitler involved in?
Adolf Hitler said:
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.
Adolf Hitler said:
We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.
adolf-hitler-quotes06-830x467.jpg

adolf-hitler-quotes07-830x467.jpg


These boys and girls enter our organizations [at] ten years of age, and often for the first time get a little fresh air; after four years of the Young Folk they go on to the Hitler Youth, where we have them for another four years . . . And even if they are still not complete National Socialists, they go to Labor Service and are smoothed out there for another six, seven months . . . And whatever class consciousness or social status might still be left . . . the Wehrmacht [German armed forces] will take care of that. - Adolf Hitler 1938

hitler-youth-large-group.jpg

hitler-youth-many-faces.jpg

standing-before-flag.jpg

Source: Victims Or Perpetrators? Photos Of Life Inside The Hitler Youth

Great. I don't accept things without evidence.


I have no reason to believe that people living in ancient times had access to any special kind of knowledge that we don't have access to today. In fact, all evidence points to them having far less knowledge about the world around them than we do today.

Also, you've failed to address the point about people from other ancient religions having "knowledge" that their religions were true as well. Well, they can't all be true. But they could all be false.

What am I parroting about what people say as to the concept of God?
Don't you say, that because people back then had no understand of certain phenomenon, they got terrified and attributed these to gods? Or am I mistaken? If I am, forgive me, please.

Great. What's the evidence?
Again?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
And yet after repeatedly being asked for even one shred of evidence that "micro-evolution" somehow miraculously stops before becoming "macro-evolution", which you and your ilk have never produced here, you have the unmitigated hypocrisy to post the above. After link upon link given to you to show that "speciation", the evolution of "kinds" (new species being formed), has been observed, not speculated, you, otoh, have produced nothing but beliefs that you then state as if they were facts.
Where does speciation lead?
Does it lead to "maco"-evolution?

Evolution is taking place every day.
When I was a teenage human being, my chest hairs started popping out. I evolved to an adult human being, and my chest hairs have stopped growing. Soon, I will be an old human being with gray chest hairs.
That's as far as my evolution goes. In fact, that's as far as any human evolution has ever been.
How long is it supposed to take?
Not so fast -- researchers find that lasting evolutionary change takes about one million years

What evidence is there of multiple ongoing beneficial mutation changes is organism? Does the fossil record contain any?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
In the most simplest terms, show me any KIND of life(plant or animal), that does not belong to an even larger KIND of life, both morphologically and genetically?

In the simplest terms, as science already knows with certainty..."all life comes from pre-existing life". This well known and well documented fact cuts evolution down at its very beginnings. Unless science can produce evidence to correct Genesis 1:1, then it is all built on the flimsiest of foundations.

For example, a whale and a pine tree are genetically and morphologically related.

OK...let's talk about morphology....it seems to be a magical word that allows science to relate creatures based on similarity of structure and other characteristics. The thing is, as shown in the second video, they will search to find a specimen that "looks like" one already in existence (although fossilized) millions of years apart and bingo! there is your ancestor. This is assumption at its best.

In simple terms, what does science know about macro-evolution?

"Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.


It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.




macroequation.gif

dot_clear.gif


A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history."

What is macroevolution?

Now how much of what is written there in basic form is assumption, rather than actual fact? How much does interpretation of their evidence facilitate their conclusions?
Whale evolution is my favorite because it demonstrates the ridiculous nature of what is suggested. Whales were once four legged furry land dwellers......who said?

What does this indicate......"Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened."

So how does science "figure out" what evolutionary events have taken place? How then do they try to "figure out" how it happened? They must fit all their findings into one box. (no matter how silly it sounds)

If scientists (no matter the branch) are all looking for the same conclusions because, to their way of thinking evolution has been indoctrinated as a foregone conclusion, then what do you suppose the "evidence" is going to suggest to them?

All I see is people who want evolution to be true, pointing to assumptions as facts, and making other people feel stupid if they don't fawn all over science for their wondrous suggestions.

I have learned, after many years of debating with evolutionists, that the impressive edifice they have constructed has no real foundations. You guys come unstuck at the very beginning......where did life originate and how did do so? The complexity of even a single cell is mind boggling and yet science presents it as if it could just pop up out of nowhere, by "natural" means. That is where your own 'fairy tale' begins. It is swept under the rug as if it was inconsequential...it isn't. Answer that question and you have an answer for everything that science is scratching its head about.

If they are different and separate kinds, then they both must have their own ancestral kind, which can't be related to each other in any way.This of course this is not the case. In fact, at some evolutionary/ancestral level, all life is genetically, morphologically, and physically related to each other. Therefore there is only one KIND of life, and it is called LIFE. But there are many different types of life. These can be categorized, based on the simplest to the most complex features, and from the many similar features to the least similar features. What this means is that one KIND can never become another KIND. You can never outgrow your ancestors, no matter how many times you differentiate.

Yes....LIFE itself is a miracle (for want of a better term) The fact that any intelligent scientist can imagine that it arose by chance is a mystery to me.

You make assumptions about creation that are not true. If there is a sole Creator of life in all its diversity, then the structure of biological life and the materials used would of necessity be the same. He is the Creator of matter, something science has only come to terms with relatively recently (taking the age of the earth and the universe into account.)

I see science as something the Creator gave us to 'play' with....to challenge our natural curiosity and need for answers about everything. But due to the nature of fallen humanity, they ended up using it to eliminate the very one to whom they owe their existence. Like toddlers refusing the hand of a parent and falling down repeatedly. I guess they figure that they will learn to walk by themselves eventually. They haven't made it yet...by a long shot.

Even if science couldn't produce any evidence that demonstrates that Evolution is clearly the best explanation of how life evolved, your evidence must stand on its own merits. It wouldn't be simply correct by default. That would still be an argument from ignorance. So what is the creationist's research undertaken? What is the science behind the knowledge claims? Surely, you can present the same level of evidence against Evolution, as scientist can present for Evolution?

Evolution is the best suggestion if one is determined to eliminate an Intelligent Designer who started the process through stages of carefully planned creative activity over millions of Earth years. Unconstrained by time, the "days" in Genesis may well have been millions of years in length leaving him to experiment with lifeforms of infinite variety. Some were 'keepers' and some were obviously not. Ask any artist if they are satisfied with every work they have created. Each of the creative "days" in Genesis was concluded with a declaration of the Creator's satisfaction with what he had accomplished in that allotted period. That tells us believers that when the time allotted concluded, that his refinements within that period were completed to his satisfaction.

The "default" position of science is colored by their own prejudices....it must at all costs (credibility included) EXCLUDE the need for a Creator.....a "bogey man" to science. I blame the YEC for a lot of this. Their scenario is just as ridiculous.
The "best explanation" for science is accepted only within their own definition.

Those who believe in a powerful Creator do not need to dissect him and question his work, his authority, or his accomplishments. They have an actual relationship with this Being that atheists will never comprehend because you need the faculty of spirituality to even entertain it. That faculty is ridiculed by science because it isn't something that can show up on a lab test......although medical science is actually making headway on that score with the ability to map the brain to see where humans differ on their approach to things. It may well have implications that we need to understand. I believe that a scary future awaits the human race if its "science" is not reigned in.

Brain scanners allow scientists to 'read minds' – could they now enable a 'Big Brother' future?

Science is a wonderful thing IMO...a gift from the Creator to allow us to delve into his creation and discover what is deliberately not obvious. He planned it that way...but when things went wrong and humans wanted to map their own course...he allowed them to see where it would take them.....do you like the direction that science is taking us, when they have eliminated the one entity who can warn them of the outcome? I see them continuing on in their merry way....gods unto themselves.
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
You have no idea what the proper function of life is. Other than the natural functions dictated by the natural laws of nature. How does one mismanage their genes, or decide how to express their proper function? The Bible is a foreign 2000+ year old book. It is a collection of stories that is a, man-made, man-compiled, man-edited, man-contracted, man-selected, and a man-written multilingual book of myths, stories, and superstations. All designed to entertain the minds of children, and control the minds of adult peasants and labourers. Why would anyone today still believe in talking animals, acts of miracles, Gods angels and demons, resurrections, heaven and hell, creation stories, or that they must repent from some imaginary sin to go to some imaginary place? Has the world truly gone mad? Maybe it is just part of the human condition, to believe that something greater than self exists.

Ancient civilizations created Gods to fill in the gaps of their own ignorance. This apparently hasn't changed much. If you believe that your beliefs are true for you, then why can't you just keep it to yourself? Why do you need to spread it to your children, or the other vulnerable and helpless minds in society? Why are you so threatened by anyone who asks for one objective bit of evidence to justify your belief? Why do you attack skeptics and Atheists, as being "narrow minded"? Why do you imply that teaching your children to use their own critical thinking abilities before making decisions, somehow justifies teaching children to simply conform to to the beliefs of the majority without question? What are you so frightened of? The Uncomfortable Truth? If I want anyone to believe anything I say, I would gladly provide evidence to support my claims. Religious beliefs does not require any objective evidence at all. So it is not Atheists and Skeptics that are "narrow minded". At least they are only waiting for the evidence to support the knowledge claims by Believers. For Believers, faith will always trump reason. Remember you're not just saying that you believe that a God exists. You are saying that you know that a God exists. Skeptics and Atheists are asking you to provide that knowledge. If you don't have any knowledge, then this is only your unjustified, and subjective belief. And, you should keep it to yourself.

I just don't get it. The mind is such a terrible thing to waste.
You have no idea as to whether I have any idea what the proper function of life is. You can't only have ideas about it, but like everything else you said here, you have no idea as to if these ideas are anything more than just ideas.

We say there is evidence God is.
You say there is evidence for LUCA, and other CAs.
What is the difference. Can you show me?
I can't show you God. You can't show me any of those CAs.
You prefer to believe one thing for whatever reason. I have reason for believing in God.
So perhaps that's the part you are not getting.

And yes, wasting our mind it foolish, but even more foolish, imo, is wasting our life.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I'm sorry Deeje, but you do not look at the evidence, not in any sense of the word. In fact, you dismiss it and wave it away, and instead focus on photos of nature and stick with the shallowest possible investigation of the natural world that I've ever seen.

Evolution is a fact.
Yes. Evolution is all around us, and when we see it, it is so beautiful.


Fact : a thing that is indisputably the case.

Evolution on a large scale is not a fact. It requires hundreds, or thousands of miracles. It never happened.
I believe God's works are miraculous, do you?
 
Top