Why Evolution and Christianity are Fundamentally Irreconcilable

[David T]

I agree spending 500 days camping and hiking is mentally ill.

I know isn't. There was this dude named John muir totally mentally ill and madness swept the country, because of him and it decided national parks were needed. Absurd I tell you.

Why so much good land not being turned into developments... so sad.. I mean a nice trump golf Resort where yellowstone is would be awesomeness. Hot spring spas, wild life hunts, ski resort year round entertainment in luxury. What the hell were we thinking back then!!!! Muir was a mentally ill menace.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is "reasonable test" necessary in a conversation about creationism? This is what I don't understand about your position. You just will not allow science NOT to be part of the equation. Are you allowed to use the word God in a sentence?

Creationists try to claim that their beliefs are scientific. If that is the case the ideas are testable. If it is just a made up myth we won't be able to test it.

And what do you mean by the "Word of God"? I was unaware that such a thing existed. Though of course you will probably be taking on a whole new burden of proof if you make that claim.

Either you accept the premise an omnipotent God exists or you do not. But if you do, then an omnipotent God could certainly create man exactly how it is described in the Bible including all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence.

You are back to calling your version of God psychotic. Isn't that a bit blasphemous on your part?

I totally get your way of thinking but only if I accept the idea God does not exist, or God is not omnipotent, or God's omnipotence is bounded by the laws of physics.

You position on God is certainly going to color your view on creationism.

You don't get my way of thinking. I do not assume that a God does not exist. I merely assume that if there is a God it is an honest and sane one.

 

[whirlingmerc]

There is one thing (likely the only thing) that Answers in Genesis got right, but many other Christians refuse to accept. The theory of evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable. Here's why:

If evolution is true, then there is no actual distinction between humans and other animals. The line drawn between humans and our more primitive ape ancestors is completely arbitrary. In other words, if evolution is true, then there was no first human, and thus no Adam or Eve. If there was no Adam or Eve, then there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, then the entire belief system of Christianity fall like a house of cards, because the doctrine of original sin is the very foundation upon which all of Christianity is built.

Am I saying that it is impossible to be a Christian and accept evolution? No, because many people (perhaps the majority of people) hold inconsistent beliefs. However, I do believe strongly that evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable in that they both cannot be true. If Darwinian evolution is a fact (and it is as close to a fact as we can get outside of mathematics and logic), then the core metaphysical claims of Christianity cannot be true for the reasons given above.

If you mean 'goo to you via the zoo' evolution then I agee

Microevolution like a wolf to a poodle... that's ok
Bear to panda... that's ok
Fisdh to blind cave fish.... that's ok

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you mean 'goo to you via the zoo' evolution then I agee

Microevolution like a wolf to a poodle... that's ok
Bear to panda... that's ok
Fisdh to blind cave fish.... that's ok

Evolution, that you are an ape for example, has been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". You either do not understand the science or you are being willfully ignorant or perhaps a combination of both.

Here is a simple test to see if you understand the concept of evidence:

Is Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) scientific evidence for the descent of man from other apes?

 

[whirlingmerc]

Evolution, that you are an ape for example, has been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". You either do not understand the science or you are being willfully ignorant or perhaps a combination of both.

Here is a simple test to see if you understand the concept of evidence:

Is Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) scientific evidence for the descent of man from other apes?

No Lucy is a terrible example and doesn't make the point.
Tree balancing pelvis... legs angled like a tightrope walked .... hands and feet like meet clearers curved for hanging.... wrist locking for walking on hands... and a spine entering the head angled like a slumped over canine.. no... doesn't make the case at all

As explained the the person who won medical teacher of the year

 

[Subduction Zone]

No Lucy is a terrible example and doesn't make the point.
Tree balancing pelvis... legs angled like a tightrope walked .... hands and feet like meet clearers curved for hanging.... wrist locking for walking on hands... and a spine entering the head angled like a slumped over canine.. no... doesn't make the case at all

And you just failed. This shows that you do not understand the concept of evidence. You are letting your prejudice guide you instead of your reason.

Scientific evidence is evidence that supports or refutes a scientific theory or hypothesis. There is no doubt that Lucy supports the evolution of man. Creationists can only lie about it. All of your claims are incorrect and probably came from a lying creationist source.

When it comes to the sciences, especially relatively recent findings, you need to find claims that are supported by professional well respected peer reviewed journals. You will not find opposition to Lucy in those.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No Lucy is a terrible example and doesn't make the point.
Tree balancing pelvis... legs angled like a tightrope walked .... hands and feet like meet clearers curved for hanging.... wrist locking for walking on hands... and a spine entering the head angled like a slumped over canine.. no... doesn't make the case at all

As explained the the person who won medical teacher of the year

I see you edited your post after I responded and added a bogus video.

Please note that you can usually check out such videos by watching it on YouTube. This one edited out the comments that refuted the idiocy and lies in that video. A "teacher of the year" is not a valid source. You need to do much more than mention an aware that may have come from creationist sources. You do not seem to understand that one of the reasons that creationists are held in such contempt in the sciences is because they do openly lie about findings like Lucy.

Once again you will not find valid sources that support the claims that you made.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I see you edited your post after I responded and added a bogus video.

Please note that you can usually check out such videos by watching it on YouTube. This one edited out the comments that refuted the idiocy and lies in that video. A "teacher of the year" is not a valid source. You need to do much more than mention an aware that may have come from creationist sources. You do not seem to understand that one of the reasons that creationists are held in such contempt in the sciences is because they do openly lie about findings like Lucy.

Once again you will not find valid sources that support the claims that you made.

bogus? sensing a trend.... anything you don't like you consider fake or bogus?
so... the professor that won Medical Teacher of the year isn't good enough for you? my my my

My personal favorite in the one on the miracle of birth

 

[Audie]

bogus? sensing a trend.... anything you don't like you consider fake or bogus?
so... the professor that won Medical Teacher of the year isn't good enough for you? my my my

My personal favorite in the one on the miracle of birth

It is a bit of a human tendency to not accept info that they do not like.

There is also the "celebrity endorsement".

His being teacher of the year is not necessarily surprising, the
man is clearly a showman.

Skill at presenting other people's established work says nothing
of course about the presenter's ability and accomplishment as
a researcher.

There is also the cross reference on someone-
Does not look too good if Lancet comes out this strong
against someone.

The Lancelet: Dr. David Menton is a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

bogus? sensing a trend.... anything you don't like you consider fake or bogus?
so... the professor that won Medical Teacher of the year isn't good enough for you? my my my

My personal favorite in the one on the miracle of birth

Yes, you use idiots and liars to support your claims instead of reliable peer reviewed science. You have someone with a fake award talking about a subject that he either knows nothing about or is lying about. I have never heard of this moronic award. I cannot find it Instead of naming an award that has nothing to do with his abilities to do anthropology why did you not list his name, and credentials. My credentials are as good as his in this debate, I can support my claims with peer reviewed science. I am betting that he can't since he clearly lied.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a bit of a human tendency to not accept info that they do not like.

There is also the "celebrity endorsement".

His being teacher of the year is not necessarily surprising, the
man is clearly a showman.

Skill at presenting other people's established work says nothing
of course about the presenter's ability and accomplishment as
a researcher.

There is also the cross reference on someone-
Does not look too good if Lancet comes out this strong
against someone.

The Lancelet: Dr. David Menton is a liar.

Thanks, he did not even mention the loon's name and now we know that he works for a company that forces their employees to swear not to use the scientific method.

I wonder how he will deal with the proven fact that Menton is a liar?

 

[Audie]

Thanks, he did not even mention the loon's name and now we know that he works for a company that forces their employees to swear not to use the scientific method.

I wonder how he will deal with the proven fact that Menton is a liar?

I had to check and see who the guy is. Did not take long.

The usual dodge is SEDI,* and, the WWCOSSTSSTTOTB**

In the event, the way creationists do authority figures is that
they are correct (but oft maligned) if they do creationism.

One marginal character is worth ten thousand of the best from
around the world, if he is a creationist.

Now, personally, I would not bring up a person who was under
such a cloud as an expert witness in anything for fear of-sure
and certain knowledge of-the fact that he would simply discredit
whatever he touched.

We do of course recognize that the creos dont have anything, and
dont know any better.

* Same evidence, different interpretation

**world wide conspiracy of satanic scientists to savagely suppress the truth of the bible

 

[Polymath257]

No, time is completely arbitrary. Man chooses when time starts and stops. Time is not a property of nature. Time doesn't exist anywhere in nature. It's purely an invention of man's imagination like the Flying Spaghetti monster.

Wrong. Time is defined in terms of observations of nature. It is a part of the regularity of nature. It is fundamental to the geometry of the cosmos in terms of spacetime.

Cyclic motion happens all over. That cyclic motion is the basis for measuring time.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Yes, you use idiots and liars to support your claims instead of reliable peer reviewed science. You have someone with a fake award talking about a subject that he either knows nothing about or is lying about. I have never heard of this moronic award. I cannot find it Instead of naming an award that has nothing to do with his abilities to do anthropology why did you not list his name, and credentials. My credentials are as good as his in this debate, I can support my claims with peer reviewed science. I am betting that he can't since he clearly lied.

As Ronald Regan famously said... 'there you go again'... idiots and liars?
so... not the Med schooll Professor of the Year is an idiot and lier?

tsk tsk tsk well I can help you with that... Washington University is like an IVY League school in the midwest

• Given ‘Distinguished Service Teaching Award’ from Washington University School of Medicine in 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997
• Named ‘Teacher of the Year’ at Washington University School of Medicine in 1979
• Elected ‘Professor of the Year’ in 1998 by the Washington University School of Medicine Class of 2000

But you already decided people who don't have your point of view are idiots and liars

 

[whirlingmerc]

It is a bit of a human tendency to not accept info that they do not like.

There is also the "celebrity endorsement".

His being teacher of the year is not necessarily surprising, the
man is clearly a showman.

Skill at presenting other people's established work says nothing
of course about the presenter's ability and accomplishment as
a researcher.

There is also the cross reference on someone-
Does not look too good if Lancet comes out this strong
against someone.

The Lancelet: Dr. David Menton is a liar.

using the phrase liar is a red flag... first someone demonizes a person who they disagree with... then they excuse themselves for treating them badly

 

[Subduction Zone]

As Ronald Regan famously said... 'there you go again'... idiots and liars?
so... not the Med schooll Professor of the Year is an idiot and lier?

tsk tsk tsk well I can help you with that... Washington University is like an IVY League school in the midwest

• Given ‘Distinguished Service Teaching Award’ from Washington University School of Medicine in 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997
• Named ‘Teacher of the Year’ at Washington University School of Medicine in 1979
• Elected ‘Professor of the Year’ in 1998 by the Washington University School of Medicine Class of 2000

But you already decided people who don't have your point of view are idiots and liars

Did you not read the article supplied by @Audie? It went over where he was proven to be a liar.

And yes, anyone at all in the sciences that supports creationism these days is a proven loon as well.

Why are you so afraid that to learn for yourself?

If Lucy had any of the traits that that nut claims she has where are the articles from well respected professional peer reviewed journals?

 

[Subduction Zone]

using the phrase liar is a red flag... first someone demonizes a person who they disagree with... then they excuse themselves for treating them badly

You forgot one important point. Your claim fails if the person is proven to be a liar, as he was in the linked article. Why didn't you read it? It was not hard to understand at all.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I doubt you read all of that in any book, Bozo-book or otherwise

I have not read the whole book but on page 12 it says "...It shaped Bacons view of the connectedness of understanding; that like plants in a garden, senses needed to be trained up by study, speculations pruned by experience. He rejected the Aristotelian tradition of deductive logic as a 'hunt more after words than matter...' . "

 

[Audie]

using the phrase liar is a red flag... first someone demonizes a person who they disagree with... then they excuse themselves for treating them badly

You commented that you consider Luvy a poor choice. Your choice of
AIG, and the individual are a good choice from your pov, as they reinforce
your beliefs. A poor choice, though, if you hope to convince anyone
that you have a valid point.

It is not I who called him a liar. The Lancet is no chick tract or tabloid.
They dont do more respectable / credible journals than Lancet.

If they said that some cancer cure is quackery, it would be well to
pay attention.

The "red flag" you speak of can wave both ways. If people tell you
that your new girlfriend is a liar, you can interpret as that they
only want to demonize and treat badly. Or, you might consider the
chance that there is something to it. If Lancet calls fraud,
that is for sure a red flag.

In the event, neither you nor yout professor are being ill used
or demonized, so that is a false issue, false accusation.

It is pointed out that he and AIG are without credibility.
If such tainted sources are all you have to offer, and such
inappropriate hand wave as you offered me is your idea of
a discussion, I wont be part of it.

I trust you will make a better effort.

 

[Audie]

I have not read the whole book but on page 12 it says "...It shaped Bacons view of the connectedness of understanding; that like plants in a garden, senses needed to be trained up by study, speculations pruned by experience. He rejected the Aristotelian tradition of deductive logic as a 'hunt more after words than matter...' . "

So I was correct that you did not read the things you said,
in bozosapiens.