Evolution or Intelligent Design
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:38:23 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Evolution or Intelligent Design
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Evolution or Intelligent Design  (Read 2123 times)
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,661
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 07, 2019, 05:15:19 PM »

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-07/evolution-supported-by-bacterial-flagellar-motor/11635276

I am staying with evolution.

These little variations (mutations) in the bacterial DNA blueprint have had a time period on Earth of approximately 3.5 billion years over which to propogate new features into their living architecture.

Given that Charles Darwin was seeing variation in species in the 10's to 100's of thousands of years time frame, it is not unimagineable to foresee many kinds of amazing micro-developments.

Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2019, 02:03:11 AM »

Evolution and Intelligent Design are not mutually exclusive. In fact the latter pretty much presupposes the former.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,798
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2019, 09:55:42 AM »

Evolution,  Dinosaurs were Reptile, Firebird, Tyrannosauruses and Birds, then came Whales and Dolphins, then came APES. Black orangus were the dominant ape species, Lucy was evolved and then Caveman. Dwarfism came from a junior chimp.

Lucy was in Africa. But, God made Earth and he is an alien

Hebrew women had children with Egyptian black pharoahs and caused Arabic race.

Everyone is related
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,321
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2019, 04:36:57 PM »

I don't know what's worse, the people who just flat-out refuse to accept the evidence for evolution, or the people who go through some tortured logic to say that the Bible doesn't preclude the possibility of natural selection.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 29, 2019, 10:06:52 PM »

I hadn't heard the phrase "intelligent design" in about a decade and I'd been happy to keep it that way.
Logged
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 126


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2019, 09:38:50 PM »

I don't know what's worse, the people who just flat-out refuse to accept the evidence for evolution, or the people who go through some tortured logic to say that the Bible doesn't preclude the possibility of natural selection.

There is no real evidence for evolution; it is all either circular, falsified, or at best circumstantial. Evolution was an ancient Greek philosophy, which Charles Darwin used as a justification for rasism. You probably don't know that the actual title of his book is this: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Other people went after the idea for other reasons, primarily as an attempt to justify atheism. People like Earnst Haeckel made several hoaxes as the first generation of "evidence" for evolution. The "evidence" constantly changes as more of it is falsified and more hoaxes are made.

If you think there is real evidence, tell me about it. Otherwise, I'll stick to my Bible which has constantly been proven right time and time again and which has guided me well.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2019, 10:31:49 PM »

I don't know what's worse, the people who just flat-out refuse to accept the evidence for evolution, or the people who go through some tortured logic to say that the Bible doesn't preclude the possibility of natural selection.

There is no real evidence for evolution; it is all either circular, falsified, or at best circumstantial. Evolution was an ancient Greek philosophy, which Charles Darwin used as a justification for rasism. You probably don't know that the actual title of his book is this: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Other people went after the idea for other reasons, primarily as an attempt to justify atheism. People like Earnst Haeckel made several hoaxes as the first generation of "evidence" for evolution. The "evidence" constantly changes as more of it is falsified and more hoaxes are made.

If you think there is real evidence, tell me about it. Otherwise, I'll stick to my Bible which has constantly been proven right time and time again and which has guided me well.

Very little of this is true. Welcome to the forum.
Logged
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 126


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2019, 12:17:32 AM »

I don't know what's worse, the people who just flat-out refuse to accept the evidence for evolution, or the people who go through some tortured logic to say that the Bible doesn't preclude the possibility of natural selection.

There is no real evidence for evolution; it is all either circular, falsified, or at best circumstantial. Evolution was an ancient Greek philosophy, which Charles Darwin used as a justification for rasism. You probably don't know that the actual title of his book is this: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Other people went after the idea for other reasons, primarily as an attempt to justify atheism. People like Earnst Haeckel made several hoaxes as the first generation of "evidence" for evolution. The "evidence" constantly changes as more of it is falsified and more hoaxes are made.

If you think there is real evidence, tell me about it. Otherwise, I'll stick to my Bible which has constantly been proven right time and time again and which has guided me well.

Very little of this is true. Welcome to the forum.

Your response is exactly like what I was expecting. I shall enjoy emphasizing that you did not bring up any evidence and you just said that my claims are not true. I have done plenty of research and watched plenty of debates and speeches. I think I know what I am talking about here.

Which parts of my comment were not true? How were they not true? What evidence do you have for evolution? Have a good night.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2019, 12:46:53 AM »

I don't know what's worse, the people who just flat-out refuse to accept the evidence for evolution, or the people who go through some tortured logic to say that the Bible doesn't preclude the possibility of natural selection.

There is no real evidence for evolution; it is all either circular, falsified, or at best circumstantial. Evolution was an ancient Greek philosophy, which Charles Darwin used as a justification for rasism. You probably don't know that the actual title of his book is this: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Other people went after the idea for other reasons, primarily as an attempt to justify atheism. People like Earnst Haeckel made several hoaxes as the first generation of "evidence" for evolution. The "evidence" constantly changes as more of it is falsified and more hoaxes are made.

If you think there is real evidence, tell me about it. Otherwise, I'll stick to my Bible which has constantly been proven right time and time again and which has guided me well.

Very little of this is true. Welcome to the forum.

Your response is exactly like what I was expecting. I shall enjoy emphasizing that you did not bring up any evidence and you just said that my claims are not true. I have done plenty of research and watched plenty of debates and speeches. I think I know what I am talking about here.

Which parts of my comment were not true? How were they not true? What evidence do you have for evolution? Have a good night.

1. "Evolution" may have been "an Ancient Greek philosophy" but natural selection was not.
2. "Races" in the title of On the Origin of Species means "species". Darwin didn't address the question of human origins until The Descent of Man, which is a completely different book. Indeed, he specifically avoided the question in On the Origin of Species, due largely to wanting to respect the importance of human origins to certain religious doctrines. Of course, this doesn't mean that evolutionary theory wasn't used to justify racism; it very much was, and indeed still is. There's no reason that this needs to be the case, however, even if "human biodiversity" is real (which it's not), since racial equality or inequality in law and in society is a question of values, and questions of scientific fact are by definition value-neutral.
3. I've never heard of Ernst Haeckel before today and I would have been happy to keep it that way.
4. The most cursory look through the fossil record will reveal clear similarities between extinct species that are consistent with change over time.
5. Viruses and bacteria evolve so fast that vaccines eventually stop working due to being designed for inoculation against old strains of the disease; this is why people get flu shots every year rather than once in childhood. Larger organisms reproduce and thus evolve more slowly.
6. Some closely related species can reproduce together and produce fertile offspring, such as wolf-dogs or those hybrid bears that are sometimes being born now as polar bears interbreed with grizzlies in response to climate change. There are also examples of introgression where genetic material from one species is introduced gradually into another due to repeated interbreeding of hybrids with one of the parent species; this is why most modern humans have some Neanderthal DNA despite Neanderthals qua Neanderthals being extinct. This is not consistent with the idea of species as unchanging absolutes; it's not even consistent with the older evolutionary definition of a species as a group of organisms capable of reproducing with one another!
7. I have other things to be doing with myself tonight so I'll just leave you with what I've written so far.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,596
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2019, 01:08:53 AM »

Evolution was an ancient Greek philosophy, which Charles Darwin used as a justification for rasism. You probably don't know that the actual title of his book is this: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Yes because the biblical explanation for the origin of man has never been used to justify racism. Cough "curse of Ham".
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2019, 01:43:29 AM »

All we can say for sure is that there was no intelligent design in the creation of Jamison5's posts.
Logged
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 126


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2019, 01:54:47 AM »

I don't know what's worse, the people who just flat-out refuse to accept the evidence for evolution, or the people who go through some tortured logic to say that the Bible doesn't preclude the possibility of natural selection.

There is no real evidence for evolution; it is all either circular, falsified, or at best circumstantial. Evolution was an ancient Greek philosophy, which Charles Darwin used as a justification for rasism. You probably don't know that the actual title of his book is this: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Other people went after the idea for other reasons, primarily as an attempt to justify atheism. People like Earnst Haeckel made several hoaxes as the first generation of "evidence" for evolution. The "evidence" constantly changes as more of it is falsified and more hoaxes are made.

If you think there is real evidence, tell me about it. Otherwise, I'll stick to my Bible which has constantly been proven right time and time again and which has guided me well.

Very little of this is true. Welcome to the forum.

Your response is exactly like what I was expecting. I shall enjoy emphasizing that you did not bring up any evidence and you just said that my claims are not true. I have done plenty of research and watched plenty of debates and speeches. I think I know what I am talking about here.

Which parts of my comment were not true? How were they not true? What evidence do you have for evolution? Have a good night.

1. "Evolution" may have been "an Ancient Greek philosophy" but natural selection was not.
2. "Races" in the title of On the Origin of Species means "species". Darwin didn't address the question of human origins until The Descent of Man, which is a completely different book. Indeed, he specifically avoided the question in On the Origin of Species, due largely to wanting to respect the importance of human origins to certain religious doctrines. Of course, this doesn't mean that evolutionary theory wasn't used to justify racism; it very much was, and indeed still is. There's no reason that this needs to be the case, however, even if "human biodiversity" is real (which it's not), since racial equality or inequality in law and in society is a question of values, and questions of scientific fact are by definition value-neutral.
3. I've never heard of Ernst Haeckel before today and I would have been happy to keep it that way.
4. The most cursory look through the fossil record will reveal clear similarities between extinct species that are consistent with change over time.
5. Viruses and bacteria evolve so fast that vaccines eventually stop working due to being designed for inoculation against old strains of the disease; this is why people get flu shots every year rather than once in childhood. Larger organisms reproduce and thus evolve more slowly.
6. Some closely related species can reproduce together and produce fertile offspring, such as wolf-dogs or those hybrid bears that are sometimes being born now as polar bears interbreed with grizzlies in response to climate change. There are also examples of introgression where genetic material from one species is introduced gradually into another due to repeated interbreeding of hybrids with one of the parent species; this is why most modern humans have some Neanderthal DNA despite Neanderthals qua Neanderthals being extinct. This is not consistent with the idea of species as unchanging absolutes; it's not even consistent with the older evolutionary definition of a species as a group of organisms capable of reproducing with one another!
7. I have other things to be doing with myself tonight so I'll just leave you with what I've written so far.

1. Selection doesn't make new genetic information or even change genes at all. Nature cannot select, nature eliminates.
2.There isn't really anything important to add to that at this point
3.Earnst Haeckel was a German scientist who read Charles Darwin's book and became an activist for evolution. He made 4 hoaxes to support it: in 1869 he made purposefully inaccurate drawings of embryos to make it look like they are very similar when they actually are not (he admitted they were fake in 1875); he made up the "monera," a supposed single-celled creature; he made up "pithecanthropus alalus" (speechless apeman) to try to fill the gap between speaking and not speaking; in 1890 he sent Eugene Dubois to Indonesia to "find" a "missing link." He found a femur, skullcap, and a tooth, which were all found separately over the course of a few years. It was given the name "Java Man" and is now called "homo erectus." In 1923, Dubois admitted that he also found 2 normal human skulls, which he had hidden in his home to cover up the hoax.
4. The fossil record shows many organisms looking exactly the same as they do now. It shows a great variety, but no order can be proven. The fossils are generally in order of the elevation of their habitats, with the higher up organisms being buried later in the global flood. Many rock layers are folded without breaking, which can only happen if it was all folded at once when it was still mud. The coelacanth is supposed to be an "index fossil" for ~400 million years ago, but they are still alive today in the Indian Ocean. Many organisms are much larger than today, contradicting evolution and instead corroborating the Bible, which describes how the organisms were cursed to mutate after Adam sinned. Mutations have never been observed to create new genetic information, they only degrade the existing genetic information. In South Carolina, the Ashley Phosphate beds contain fossils of mammals and reptiles, and constain human artifacts, all together. In West Virginia, a bell was found in a lump of coal which supposedly was ~300 million years old. Petrified trees are found going through multiple layers, proving that they layers cannot be millions of years apart.
5. Viruses and bacteria become "resistant" when they have a mutation that deletes or degrades the part of their body that the vaccine or antibiotic targets. They are weaker overall and have less genetic information than the previous viruses and bacteria. Humans have been mutating negatively also, causing higher rates of cancers, Alzheimer's, autism, and other genetic diseases and disorders. Human females pass down mitochondrial DNA. There are 3 main haplogroups of this, corresponding to the wives of Noah's 3 sons. The differences in mitochondrial DNA indicate a common ancestor only thousands of years ago. Y-chromosomes are only passed down my males obviously. The differences in the Y-chromosome indicate a common ancestor only thousands of years ago.
6. Your claim of the idea of "species as unchanging absolutes" is a strawman. Based on the definition of "kind" given in the Bible, the absolutes are at the family level, not species. Members of the same family can interbreed. Members of different ones cannot. The separate species are the result of different location and genetic bottleneck. Neanderthals have bigger brains than modern humans, and have long brow ridges. Neanderthals were stronger also, think about how the Great Pyramid could have been made without modern equipment. The brow ridges indicate longer lifespan, as described in the Bible. Their bigger brains show that we are geneticly inferior to them as we have devolved just as all organisms devolve. Neanderthals are likely post-flood, post-Babel humans that were living to 100-200.
7. Think about finding some debates or speeches on Youtube. Maybe take a look at creationist sites. The truth is that the Bible is coherent and accurate. The Bible even contains many scientific statements that predate many scientists' discoveries. Have a good day.
Logged
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 126


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2019, 01:58:13 AM »

Evolution was an ancient Greek philosophy, which Charles Darwin used as a justification for rasism. You probably don't know that the actual title of his book is this: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Yes because the biblical explanation for the origin of man has never been used to justify racism. Cough "curse of Ham".

The "curse of Ham" has nothing to do with race. Don't make stuff up like that. The Bible never mentions race at all and instead describes that all humans are one race. The Africans are descended from Ham, but that is entirely irrelevent to what you brought up.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2019, 02:35:48 AM »

I don't know what's worse, the people who just flat-out refuse to accept the evidence for evolution, or the people who go through some tortured logic to say that the Bible doesn't preclude the possibility of natural selection.

There is no real evidence for evolution; it is all either circular, falsified, or at best circumstantial. Evolution was an ancient Greek philosophy, which Charles Darwin used as a justification for rasism. You probably don't know that the actual title of his book is this: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Other people went after the idea for other reasons, primarily as an attempt to justify atheism. People like Earnst Haeckel made several hoaxes as the first generation of "evidence" for evolution. The "evidence" constantly changes as more of it is falsified and more hoaxes are made.

If you think there is real evidence, tell me about it. Otherwise, I'll stick to my Bible which has constantly been proven right time and time again and which has guided me well.

Very little of this is true. Welcome to the forum.

Your response is exactly like what I was expecting. I shall enjoy emphasizing that you did not bring up any evidence and you just said that my claims are not true. I have done plenty of research and watched plenty of debates and speeches. I think I know what I am talking about here.

Which parts of my comment were not true? How were they not true? What evidence do you have for evolution? Have a good night.

1. "Evolution" may have been "an Ancient Greek philosophy" but natural selection was not.
2. "Races" in the title of On the Origin of Species means "species". Darwin didn't address the question of human origins until The Descent of Man, which is a completely different book. Indeed, he specifically avoided the question in On the Origin of Species, due largely to wanting to respect the importance of human origins to certain religious doctrines. Of course, this doesn't mean that evolutionary theory wasn't used to justify racism; it very much was, and indeed still is. There's no reason that this needs to be the case, however, even if "human biodiversity" is real (which it's not), since racial equality or inequality in law and in society is a question of values, and questions of scientific fact are by definition value-neutral.
3. I've never heard of Ernst Haeckel before today and I would have been happy to keep it that way.
4. The most cursory look through the fossil record will reveal clear similarities between extinct species that are consistent with change over time.
5. Viruses and bacteria evolve so fast that vaccines eventually stop working due to being designed for inoculation against old strains of the disease; this is why people get flu shots every year rather than once in childhood. Larger organisms reproduce and thus evolve more slowly.
6. Some closely related species can reproduce together and produce fertile offspring, such as wolf-dogs or those hybrid bears that are sometimes being born now as polar bears interbreed with grizzlies in response to climate change. There are also examples of introgression where genetic material from one species is introduced gradually into another due to repeated interbreeding of hybrids with one of the parent species; this is why most modern humans have some Neanderthal DNA despite Neanderthals qua Neanderthals being extinct. This is not consistent with the idea of species as unchanging absolutes; it's not even consistent with the older evolutionary definition of a species as a group of organisms capable of reproducing with one another!
7. I have other things to be doing with myself tonight so I'll just leave you with what I've written so far.

1. Selection doesn't make new genetic information or even change genes at all. Nature cannot select, nature eliminates.
2.There isn't really anything important to add to that at this point
3.Earnst Haeckel was a German scientist who read Charles Darwin's book and became an activist for evolution. He made 4 hoaxes to support it: in 1869 he made purposefully inaccurate drawings of embryos to make it look like they are very similar when they actually are not (he admitted they were fake in 1875); he made up the "monera," a supposed single-celled creature; he made up "pithecanthropus alalus" (speechless apeman) to try to fill the gap between speaking and not speaking; in 1890 he sent Eugene Dubois to Indonesia to "find" a "missing link." He found a femur, skullcap, and a tooth, which were all found separately over the course of a few years. It was given the name "Java Man" and is now called "homo erectus." In 1923, Dubois admitted that he also found 2 normal human skulls, which he had hidden in his home to cover up the hoax.
4. The fossil record shows many organisms looking exactly the same as they do now. It shows a great variety, but no order can be proven. The fossils are generally in order of the elevation of their habitats, with the higher up organisms being buried later in the global flood. Many rock layers are folded without breaking, which can only happen if it was all folded at once when it was still mud. The coelacanth is supposed to be an "index fossil" for ~400 million years ago, but they are still alive today in the Indian Ocean. Many organisms are much larger than today, contradicting evolution and instead corroborating the Bible, which describes how the organisms were cursed to mutate after Adam sinned. Mutations have never been observed to create new genetic information, they only degrade the existing genetic information. In South Carolina, the Ashley Phosphate beds contain fossils of mammals and reptiles, and constain human artifacts, all together. In West Virginia, a bell was found in a lump of coal which supposedly was ~300 million years old. Petrified trees are found going through multiple layers, proving that they layers cannot be millions of years apart.
5. Viruses and bacteria become "resistant" when they have a mutation that deletes or degrades the part of their body that the vaccine or antibiotic targets. They are weaker overall and have less genetic information than the previous viruses and bacteria. Humans have been mutating negatively also, causing higher rates of cancers, Alzheimer's, autism, and other genetic diseases and disorders. Human females pass down mitochondrial DNA. There are 3 main haplogroups of this, corresponding to the wives of Noah's 3 sons. The differences in mitochondrial DNA indicate a common ancestor only thousands of years ago. Y-chromosomes are only passed down my males obviously. The differences in the Y-chromosome indicate a common ancestor only thousands of years ago.
6. Your claim of the idea of "species as unchanging absolutes" is a strawman. Based on the definition of "kind" given in the Bible, the absolutes are at the family level, not species. Members of the same family can interbreed. Members of different ones cannot. The separate species are the result of different location and genetic bottleneck. Neanderthals have bigger brains than modern humans, and have long brow ridges. Neanderthals were stronger also, think about how the Great Pyramid could have been made without modern equipment. The brow ridges indicate longer lifespan, as described in the Bible. Their bigger brains show that we are geneticly inferior to them as we have devolved just as all organisms devolve. Neanderthals are likely post-flood, post-Babel humans that were living to 100-200.
7. Think about finding some debates or speeches on Youtube. Maybe take a look at creationist sites. The truth is that the Bible is coherent and accurate. The Bible even contains many scientific statements that predate many scientists' discoveries. Have a good day.

Are you familiar with the phrase "seamless universe of self" from the eighties sci-fi novel Neuromancer?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2019, 09:52:42 AM »

Petrified trees are found going through multiple layers, proving that they layers cannot be millions of years apart.

Obviously you've never heard of pudding stones, or you'd easily realize that this example disproves nothing.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2019, 01:31:07 PM »

There are plenty of reputable scientists who believe in a first cause "Creator" of sorts, which can practically be called God ... but I have never heard a good argument for "Intelligent Design."  Most scientists who believe in a God reject Intelligent Design, mostly because it's simply overkill ... you can accept evolution in full and very easily reconcile it with a belief in a higher power without bending science to fit a pro-religion narrative.
Logged
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 126


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2019, 05:03:49 PM »

There are plenty of reputable scientists who believe in a first cause "Creator" of sorts, which can practically be called God ... but I have never heard a good argument for "Intelligent Design."  Most scientists who believe in a God reject Intelligent Design, mostly because it's simply overkill ... you can accept evolution in full and very easily reconcile it with a belief in a higher power without bending science to fit a pro-religion narrative.

You have that backwards. Atheists jumped on evolution as a natural explanation for the diversity of life, then they tried to use that idea to disregard the supernatural. Many "believers" of God compromise themselves by assuming that the "scientists" are right. Christians do not bend science to support the Bible, instead, fake or ignorant Christians bend the Bible try to fit evolution. The Bible gives the much better explanation for the diversity of life, the origin of life, the fossils, etc. The Law of Biogenesis proves that nature cannot produce life. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe could not have formed naturally. There is overwhelming proof for God, specifically the God of the Bible. There are also many evidences for a young earth: the small amount of mud at river deltas; the weakening of the magnetic field; Saturn's unstable rings; Carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, and dinosaur fossils; etc. The truth is that atheists bend science to try to justify atheism.
Logged
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 126


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2019, 05:06:23 PM »

Petrified trees are found going through multiple layers, proving that they layers cannot be millions of years apart.

Obviously you've never heard of pudding stones, or you'd easily realize that this example disproves nothing.

I have never heard an evolutionist mention that before. Please explain what you are talking about. Perhaps you could also entertain me by attempting to rebut all of the other evidences for a young earth and against evolution.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2019, 05:38:33 PM »

Anyone who draws lines between “real” theists and “fake” ones, whether they’re neck-beard, hot-take atheists or absolutist fundies, immediately lose my respect in regard to this conversation.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,798
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2019, 07:31:01 PM »

Lucy was the original Eve, Hebrew women were the original cavewoman, black Phoaroahs were the Caveman and Arabs were the Cain and Able. 

Dwarfism is the mutation of the primate family and we have little people as a result. You get Giants in Africa, Europe and Asia, which is a mutation as well. But less so, in America, due to the mixture of the races.
 
Pyramids were stone houses built by Native Americans as well as by Egyptiands and Hebrews; consequently,  this is the true intelligent design, by the alien God, who sent his creation Jesus as a High Priest
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,321
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2019, 07:58:18 PM »

I don't know what's worse, the people who just flat-out refuse to accept the evidence for evolution, or the people who go through some tortured logic to say that the Bible doesn't preclude the possibility of natural selection.

If nothing else, I think this thread has answered this question for me.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2019, 08:21:50 PM »

I don't know what's worse, the people who just flat-out refuse to accept the evidence for evolution, or the people who go through some tortured logic to say that the Bible doesn't preclude the possibility of natural selection.

If nothing else, I think this thread has answered this question for me.

Not that there are both types present, despite what you might imagine.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2019, 10:28:25 PM »

Petrified trees are found going through multiple layers, proving that they layers cannot be millions of years apart.

Obviously you've never heard of pudding stones, or you'd easily realize that this example disproves nothing.

I have never heard an evolutionist mention that before. Please explain what you are talking about. Perhaps you could also entertain me by attempting to rebut all of the other evidences for a young earth and against evolution.

A pudding stone is a fairly common sedimentary rock that has a mixture of other rocks embedded in a finer grained sedimentary stone. Given a large object such as a petrified tree, it's perfectly reasonable that it would take multiple layers of sediment to cover it.

As for the others, there's absolutely no need to rebut the bell that was supposedly entombed in coal as its "discoverer" supposedly fully extracted it from its coal matrix, thus making it impossible to distinguish it from a complete fabrication.

I've read more than enuf pseudoscientific mischararacterizations of what science entails presented by YEC Biblical literalists over the years that I'm not going to bother trying to dissolve your preconceived notions by rebutting all your assertions because based on my past experience, my rebuttals, even if accepted by you, will only yield a "but what about ..." from you. The only way to prevent that would be for you to be willing to learn the difference between science and pseudoscience from someone who knows how to teach the difference to someone who has been previously been exposed to pseudoscience presented as if it were science. That's not a skill I have, nor do I have any particular reason to learn it.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2019, 10:55:12 PM »

I don't know what's worse, the people who just flat-out refuse to accept the evidence for evolution, or the people who go through some tortured logic to say that the Bible doesn't preclude the possibility of natural selection.

If nothing else, I think this thread has answered this question for me.

You're welcome.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2019, 10:56:50 PM »

Evolution and Intelligent Design are not mutually exclusive. In fact the latter pretty much presupposes the former.
To some extent, a so called uncaused cause is necessary for the very beginning of the universe; the Christian/Abrahamic view of a God outside of space and time, not subject to the rules of the universe, therefore beginning the universe, fits very nicely within the science of the beginning of space-time.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.076 seconds with 11 queries.