-
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!
That's nice.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Jared Jammer
Member
There was certainly a point in time when our ignorance made the simplistic idea of evolution appear credible. As Theodosius Dobzhansky once quipped, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
Of course, this was 1973, molecular biology was in its infancy, and Dobzhansky was a decrepit 70-something-year-old fossil whose primary education in biology was formulated in the 1920's and 30's. To his dementia-inflicted, archaic mind, his statement was true.
Unfortunately for those of you who have a religious commitment to evolution, those days of ignorance are long gone. The evidence has done a complete turnaround, and we can now say that nothing in biology makes sense in the light of biology.
Genetic sequencing and comparison has confirmed what the fossil record has always shown: A pattern incompatible with evolution.
The tree of life is dead and common ancestry is on life support.
Lab research continues to show random mutation to be an inept designer mimic; a process which overwhelming destroys, rather than creates.
Every line of investigation say this idea is wrong, which is why those who defend it resort to such unscientific, illogical arguments (appeals to consensus, ad hominem fallacies, etc.).
One does not have to prove God, but merely show that the God claim is stronger than the competing claim, atheism.
Given that atheism has no positive supporting evidence, and ample conflicting evidence, this is rather easy to do.
In fact, a single poor argument for God would be strong enough to topple atheism in much the same way that the lousy boxer topples the local hobo fighting for a hot meal. You don't have to be good to defeat a worldview that is horrifically irrational, which atheism is.
Human beings are too limited in to disprove a universal negative. You can certainly make arguments which you believe are evidence against an evangelical God, but you cannot disprove such a concept.
I've never lost a debate.
The basic scientific methods show the origin of life to be aproduct of design, and any subsequent diversification to be the product of design.
Life is information in the form of the genetic code, which is processed by by the hardware-- the nanotechnology -- of the cell. This is a directed process. This is design.
There is little to no randomness involved in the entire process; the belief that there is was a product of ignorance -- an argument from ignorance. "I don't understand how life operates, therefor, life is random." Our knowledge has conquered the "I don't understands"
Evolution, at least the blind watchmaker brand of evolution which supports atheism, has lost, badly.
There is no theory of evolution. There is a failed hypothesis of evolution. Please, do educate yourself on the distinction between the two.
Once you've familiarized yourself with the proper protocol of good scientific investigation, your next task is to study the history of science. In doing so, you'll find that Darwin's theory of evolution -- the stealth atheist religion you so poorly defend -- was popularized in 1859.
Darwinists are notoriously poor with numbers, so let me do the math for you: That was 155 years ago.
So, according to our super-duper-amazingly-intelligent friend angellous_evangellous, creationists lost a 155-year-old debate 200 years ago.
Someone who screws up 1st-grade math is clearly someone we should be listening to when it comes to the great mysteries of life, like our existence.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Yes.. "blah blah put me on ignore" would have been far more useful
McBell
Admiral Obvious
"I am to far to ignorant and or dishonest about evolution to have an honest meaningful discussion on evolution" would be nice, but I have not ever seen a single creationi... I mean, person who fits the description, admit it.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
There was certainly a point in time when our ignorance made the simplistic idea of evolution appear credible. As Theodosius Dobzhansky once quipped, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
Of course, this was 1973, molecular biology was in its infancy, and Dobzhansky was a decrepit 70-something-year-old fossil whose primary education in biology was formulated in the 1920's and 30's. To his dementia-inflicted, archaic mind, his statement was true.
Unfortunately for those of you who have a religious commitment to evolution, those days of ignorance are long gone. The evidence has done a complete turnaround, and we can now say that nothing in biology makes sense in the light of biology.
Genetic sequencing and comparison has confirmed what the fossil record has always shown: A pattern incompatible with evolution.
The tree of life is dead and common ancestry is on life support.
Lab research continues to show random mutation to be an inept designer mimic; a process which overwhelming destroys, rather than creates.
Every line of investigation say this idea is wrong, which is why those who defend it resort to such unscientific, illogical arguments (appeals to consensus, ad hominem fallacies, etc.).
One does not have to prove God, but merely show that the God claim is stronger than the competing claim, atheism.
Given that atheism has no positive supporting evidence, and ample conflicting evidence, this is rather easy to do.
In fact, a single poor argument for God would be strong enough to topple atheism in much the same way that the lousy boxer topples the local hobo fighting for a hot meal. You don't have to be good to defeat a worldview that is horrifically irrational, which atheism is.
Human beings are too limited in to disprove a universal negative. You can certainly make arguments which you believe are evidence against an evangelical God, but you cannot disprove such a concept.
I've never lost a debate.
The basic scientific methods show the origin of life to be aproduct of design, and any subsequent diversification to be the product of design.
Life is information in the form of the genetic code, which is processed by by the hardware-- the nanotechnology -- of the cell. This is a directed process. This is design.
There is little to no randomness involved in the entire process; the belief that there is was a product of ignorance -- an argument from ignorance. "I don't understand how life operates, therefor, life is random." Our knowledge has conquered the "I don't understands"
Evolution, at least the blind watchmaker brand of evolution which supports atheism, has lost, badly.
There is no theory of evolution. There is a failed hypothesis of evolution. Please, do educate yourself on the distinction between the two.
Once you've familiarized yourself with the proper protocol of good scientific investigation, your next task is to study the history of science. In doing so, you'll find that Darwin's theory of evolution -- the stealth atheist religion you so poorly defend -- was popularized in 1859.
Darwinists are notoriously poor with numbers, so let me do the math for you: That was 155 years ago.
So, according to our super-duper-amazingly-intelligent friend angellous_evangellous, creationists lost a 155-year-old debate 200 years ago.
Someone who screws up 1st-grade math is clearly someone we should be listening to when it comes to the great mysteries of life, like our existence.
Why do 99.99% of biologists believe that you have all of that completely wrong? How do you explain that?
As a specific example - you say that the origins of life has been shown to be design, and of course that simply can not be true. ID is yet to reach the stage of a testable hypothesis, no test for design has even been proposed. So it can not be true that the origins of life has been shown to be designed.
Last edited:
McBell
Admiral Obvious
IT'S A TRAP!!!!
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I do admit that stupidity amuses me -- probably more than it should.
So for me - this thread teaches me who I should ignore, but don't.
It's a guilty pleasure.
So for me - this thread teaches me who I should ignore, but don't.
It's a guilty pleasure.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
The only possible true answer sadly.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Nothing sad about it. This the circus!
It's only sad if the people who should affirm reality actually do affirm reality.
The rest of us can play in the litter box if stupidity.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Yes, that is sad. Fortunately, I hope - most Christians don't have a problem with it at all. It's only the American evangelical fundamentalists - which is a large number of Americans (Christianly speaking).
America really is the final frontier. It's not sad to me because these folks don't really have a stake in the game. The worst thing that they do is indoctrinate their children, but even that can be worn down.
I mean it's not like you need to understand biology or the rest of the natural sciences to be an architect or a math teacher or any vast number of other things.
So it's really just something that we can laugh at because it's just something stupid that's not harmful to anyone.
However, it does grieve me when Christians end up denying the faith because they've been so heavily indoctrinated that they must believe in creationism to believe in God. That to me is sad, because many of these folks struggle with their religion over something completely insignificant to anything.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
How ironic.
Not when you make up both sides.
Prophet
breaking the statutes of my local municipality
It was similarly sad for me seeing otherwise rational atheists denying the historical Jesus.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
What historical Jesus?
A