The Failure Of Evolution Theory . . . in a nutshell, information

[james bond]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

If evolution was fact, then I could give you examples. But it doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy that would be needed for expansion of the universe. It's a question of what came first -- energy or matter? And someone like you doesn't have a clue.

Correct. Biological evolution doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy.

Did you believe biological evolution was supposed to explain what was before the beginning of life? That is a complete lack of understanding of the process of evolution.

I'm referring to atheist cosmology and evolutionary thinking. It goes to show you don't know about these areas.

 

[james bond]

You guys can't explain how the sun came to be. The sun couldn't have started by itself.

Good god this is stupid. Yes dummy, we can explain how the Sun came to be. This is 8th grade science material.

No, it's just a theory.

Besides, no one has explained it here in their own words. I asked a simple question of where the energy came from, i.e. EMS, and the atheists here ran away.

The lie is atheists assume things started to exist out of nothing.

 

[Quasar44]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

If evolution was fact, then I could give you examples. But it doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy that would be needed for expansion of the universe. It's a question of what came first -- energy or matter? And someone like you doesn't have a clue.

Correct. Biological evolution doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy.

Did you believe biological evolution was supposed to explain what was before the beginning of life? That is a complete lack of understanding of the process of evolution.

What happened before the BB is irrelevant to evolution

 

[Quasar44]

Evolution is about as real and factual as you can get

 

[james bond]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

If evolution was fact, then I could give you examples. But it doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy that would be needed for expansion of the universe. It's a question of what came first -- energy or matter? And someone like you doesn't have a clue.

Correct. Biological evolution doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy.

Did you believe biological evolution was supposed to explain what was before the beginning of life? That is a complete lack of understanding of the process of evolution.

What happened before the BB is irrelevant to evolution

Only to ToE. Just a wrong and misconstrued theory made up by atheist humans and their scientists.

When discussing evolutionary thinking and cosmology, these nutgoobers have to start discussing multiverses.

 

[james bond]

Evolution is about as real and factual as you can get

And if this were R&E, then you're going to hell in a hand basket. Think of places like Mars and how unpleasant it is compared to Earth.

 

[Quasar44]

Evolution is about as real and factual as you can get

And if this were R&E, then you're going to hell in a hand basket. Think of places like Mars and how unpleasant it is compared to Earth.

Each planet has a unique course of formation based on many factors

 

[abu afak]

I'm referring to Atheist Cosmology and Evolutionary thinking. It goes to show you don't know about these areas.

YOU (and Ringtone) prefer Evangelical Physics, Hindu Biology, and Papal astronomy?

`

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

If evolution was fact, then I could give you examples. But it doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy that would be needed for expansion of the universe. It's a question of what came first -- energy or matter? And someone like you doesn't have a clue.

Correct. Biological evolution doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy.

Did you believe biological evolution was supposed to explain what was before the beginning of life? That is a complete lack of understanding of the process of evolution.

I'm referring to atheist cosmology and evolutionary thinking. It goes to show you don't know about these areas.

Is there atheist cosmology as opposed to fundamentalist Christian cosmology? Tell us about fundamentalist Christian cosmology. What are the basic principles of fundamentalist Christian cosmology?

As to evolutionary thinking, what, exactly, is that?

You've given us your thoughts on supernatural creation, a young earth and literal "Biblical thinking'' but most of the planet accepts the fact that your literalist ''Biblical thinking'' is wrong. How to you account for that?

 

[Ringtone]

I beg to differ, you've proved nothing. You made a case for a creator but the nature of that creator is completely unknown. You have never even attempted to connect that creator to the God of the Bible.

Now you disappoint me, alang. Though we occasionally rib one another, I thought we were on good terms. We've always been cordial to each other, agreed to disagree without rancor.

You acknowledge the logical necessity of an eternally existing entity. After all, how could existence have just popped into existence out of an ontological nothingness, or caused itself to exist before it existed? Absurdity! Indeed, how could nonexistence exist in the first place?

You also acknowledge that the eternally existing entity cannot be of a material substance. Yes? No?

I'm well aware of the fact that you keep asking me to prove that the God of the Bible is in fact the eternally existing entity of necessity as opposed to other supposed candidates. Here's the problem, alang, you, not I, keep walking away from the discourse.

For the moment and for the sake of objectivity, forget about the idea of God altogether. Let's do the Socratic method.

How could the eternally existing entity, whatever it may be, possibly be of a material substance when an actual infinite in the spacetime continuum is an absurdity?

The nature of the ultimate ground of existence is completely unknown, you say?!

The imperatives of logic and mathematics don't tell us that the ultimate ground of existence is necessarily (1) of an eternally self-subsistent essence and (2) of an immaterial essence?

That's weird.

What else do the imperatives of logic and mathematics tell us about the nature of the ultimate ground of existence?

You don't know. You've never even bothered to think about it. Every time we get to this point in the discourse, the point at which the imperatives prove that the ultimate ground of existence is necessarily immaterial, you shut down the discourse. You close your mind like a slammed shut door.

Why?

 

[Hollie]

I beg to differ, you've proved nothing. You made a case for a creator but the nature of that creator is completely unknown. You have never even attempted to connect that creator to the God of the Bible.

Now you disappoint me, alang. Though we occasionally rib one another, I thought we were on good terms. We've always been cordial to each other, agreed to disagree without rancor.

You acknowledge the logical necessity of an eternally existing entity. After all, how could existence have just popped into existence out of an ontological nothingness, or caused itself to exist before it existed? Absurdity! Indeed, how could nonexistence exist in the first place?

You also acknowledge that the eternally existing entity cannot be of a material substance. Yes? No?

I'm well aware of the fact that you keep asking me to prove that the God of the Bible is in fact the eternally existing entity of necessity as opposed to other supposed candidates. Here's the problem, alang, you, not I, keep walking away from the discourse.

For the moment and for the sake of objectivity, forget about the idea of God altogether. Let's do the Socratic method.

How could the eternally existing entity, whatever it may be, possibly be of a material substance when an actual infinite in the spacetime continuum is an absurdity?

The nature of the ultimate ground of existence is completely unknown, you say?!

The imperatives of logic and mathematics don't tell us that the ultimate ground of existence is necessarily (1) of an eternally self-subsistent essence and (2) of an immaterial essence?

That's weird.

What else do the imperatives of logic and mathematics tell us about the nature of the ultimate ground of existence?

You don't know. You've never even bothered to think about it. Every time we get to this point in the discourse, the point at which the imperatives prove that the ultimate ground of existence is necessarily immaterial, you shut down the discourse. You close your mind like a slammed shut door.

Why?

There is no “logical necessity of an eternally existing entity”.

Your time at the Jerry Falwell ministries was a waste of time. The imperatives of logic and mathematics make us certain of that.

 

[james bond]

I'm referring to Atheist Cosmology and Evolutionary thinking. It goes to show you don't know about these areas.

YOU (and Ringtone) prefer Evangelical Physics, Hindu Biology, and Papal astronomy?

`

Haha . You believe in Atheist cosmology, evolutionary thinking, and ToE. You believe in foolish atheist science. It was created by mostly atheists who wanted to eliminate God from science and assume there is only nature. It only started from the 1850s and was severely debunked from 2007 - 2012. That's when fine tuning was discovered by your scientists. It hurt because it contradicted abiogenesis and how life can pop up from non-life if the conditions were right. Its news and articles on it were soon taken off the internet. That forced the atheist scientists to go to Multiverses with absolutely no evidence. Even Stephen Hawking talked about it before he died. What kind of science is based on no evidence? I just explained it to you -- atheist science.

We have creation science because we believe in what God said and discovered science backs it up. There is no book like the Bible. For example, we got news yesterday of the atheist scientists naming rocks on Mars. It is not really an accomplishment. Mars sucks as a planet, but the liberals want to go there if they could. I'll give credit for being able to fly there and creating the robot rovers. Otherwise, atheist science and their scientists haven't accomplished much of anything in regards to cosmology, evolutionary thinking, and ToE. It's so basic that even you get most of it.

 

[james bond]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

If evolution was fact, then I could give you examples. But it doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy that would be needed for expansion of the universe. It's a question of what came first -- energy or matter? And someone like you doesn't have a clue.

Correct. Biological evolution doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy.

Did you believe biological evolution was supposed to explain what was before the beginning of life? That is a complete lack of understanding of the process of evolution.

I'm referring to atheist cosmology and evolutionary thinking. It goes to show you don't know about these areas.

Is there atheist cosmology as opposed to fundamentalist Christian cosmology? Tell us about fundamentalist Christian cosmology. What are the basic principles of fundamentalist Christian cosmology?

As to evolutionary thinking, what, exactly, is that?

You've given us your thoughts on supernatural creation, a young earth and literal "Biblical thinking'' but most of the planet accepts the fact that your literalist ''Biblical thinking'' is wrong. How to you account for that?

God gives us the correct order of how everything was created in Genesis in seven days. OTOH, none of you can answer how the Earth, universe, and everything in it originated. Look at the OP. He claims evolution is fact and is too stupid to explain it.

 

[Quasar44]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

If evolution was fact, then I could give you examples. But it doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy that would be needed for expansion of the universe. It's a question of what came first -- energy or matter? And someone like you doesn't have a clue.

Correct. Biological evolution doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy.

Did you believe biological evolution was supposed to explain what was before the beginning of life? That is a complete lack of understanding of the process of evolution.

I'm referring to atheist cosmology and evolutionary thinking. It goes to show you don't know about these areas.

Is there atheist cosmology as opposed to fundamentalist Christian cosmology? Tell us about fundamentalist Christian cosmology. What are the basic principles of fundamentalist Christian cosmology?

As to evolutionary thinking, what, exactly, is that?

You've given us your thoughts on supernatural creation, a young earth and literal "Biblical thinking'' but most of the planet accepts the fact that your literalist ''Biblical thinking'' is wrong. How to you account for that?

God gives us the correct order of how everything was created in Genesis in seven days. OTOH, none of you can answer how the Earth, universe, and everything in it originated. Look at the OP. He claims evolution is fact and is too stupid to explain it.

They can isotope date the earth to 4-5 billion yrs but I sure you won’t find that in the Bible

 

[Quasar44]

The human body is riddled with errors ?
Clearly not a design by a higher being ?

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

If evolution was fact, then I could give you examples. But it doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy that would be needed for expansion of the universe. It's a question of what came first -- energy or matter? And someone like you doesn't have a clue.

Correct. Biological evolution doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy.

Did you believe biological evolution was supposed to explain what was before the beginning of life? That is a complete lack of understanding of the process of evolution.

I'm referring to atheist cosmology and evolutionary thinking. It goes to show you don't know about these areas.

Is there atheist cosmology as opposed to fundamentalist Christian cosmology? Tell us about fundamentalist Christian cosmology. What are the basic principles of fundamentalist Christian cosmology?

As to evolutionary thinking, what, exactly, is that?

You've given us your thoughts on supernatural creation, a young earth and literal "Biblical thinking'' but most of the planet accepts the fact that your literalist ''Biblical thinking'' is wrong. How to you account for that?

God gives us the correct order of how everything was created in Genesis in seven days. OTOH, none of you can answer how the Earth, universe, and everything in it originated. Look at the OP. He claims evolution is fact and is too stupid to explain it.

The flaw with your magical thinking is that the men who wrote the Bibles got the order of events in the Genesis fable wrong.

 

[alang1216]

I beg to differ, you've proved nothing. You made a case for a creator but the nature of that creator is completely unknown. You have never even attempted to connect that creator to the God of the Bible.

Now you disappoint me, alang. Though we occasionally rib one another, I thought we were on good terms. We've always been cordial to each other, agreed to disagree without rancor.

You acknowledge the logical necessity of an eternally existing entity. After all, how could existence have just popped into existence out of an ontological nothingness, or caused itself to exist before it existed? Absurdity! Indeed, how could nonexistence exist in the first place?

You also acknowledge that the eternally existing entity cannot be of a material substance. Yes? No?

I'm well aware of the fact that you keep asking me to prove that the God of the Bible is in fact the eternally existing entity of necessity as opposed to other supposed candidates. Here's the problem, alang, you, not I, keep walking away from the discourse.

For the moment and for the sake of objectivity, forget about the idea of God altogether. Let's do the Socratic method.

How could the eternally existing entity, whatever it may be, possibly be of a material substance when an actual infinite in the spacetime continuum is an absurdity?

The nature of the ultimate ground of existence is completely unknown, you say?!

The imperatives of logic and mathematics don't tell us that the ultimate ground of existence is necessarily (1) of an eternally self-subsistent essence and (2) of an immaterial essence?

That's weird.

What else do the imperatives of logic and mathematics tell us about the nature of the ultimate ground of existence?

You don't know. You've never even bothered to think about it. Every time we get to this point in the discourse, the point at which the imperatives prove that the ultimate ground of existence is necessarily immaterial, you shut down the discourse. You close your mind like a slammed shut door.

Why?

I'm sorry if you read any rancor into my post since none was intended.

Here is where we stand, as I see it. You make a case for an eternal intelligence of some sort that would be required by your logic to create our universe. It may well be true, I don't know. To me that is a god-of-the-gaps argument, we don't know the cause of the universe so it must be a god. As I've said, I'm agnostic on this point, I have no hard evidence for either a supernatural creator or a 100% natural cause we don't yet know. If I'm in a closed, windowless room I can't know what is outside. I can speculate based on what I find in the room but, until I can open a door or window, I can't know for sure.

That is how I view your arguments for a creator. My argument is that, though you may be completely right, it sheds no light on the nature of this creator. You generally can't know anything about an artist just from observing a painting. Everything people of faith believe about God comes from the Bible, not from His creation. In fact they tend to ignore his creation and view the world as they wish it to be (e.g., james bond). That is the discourse we have yet to have.

 

[james bond]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

If evolution was fact, then I could give you examples. But it doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy that would be needed for expansion of the universe. It's a question of what came first -- energy or matter? And someone like you doesn't have a clue.

Correct. Biological evolution doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy.

Did you believe biological evolution was supposed to explain what was before the beginning of life? That is a complete lack of understanding of the process of evolution.

I'm referring to atheist cosmology and evolutionary thinking. It goes to show you don't know about these areas.

Is there atheist cosmology as opposed to fundamentalist Christian cosmology? Tell us about fundamentalist Christian cosmology. What are the basic principles of fundamentalist Christian cosmology?

As to evolutionary thinking, what, exactly, is that?

You've given us your thoughts on supernatural creation, a young earth and literal "Biblical thinking'' but most of the planet accepts the fact that your literalist ''Biblical thinking'' is wrong. How to you account for that?

God gives us the correct order of how everything was created in Genesis in seven days. OTOH, none of you can answer how the Earth, universe, and everything in it originated. Look at the OP. He claims evolution is fact and is too stupid to explain it.

They can isotope date the earth to 4-5 billion yrs but I sure you won’t find that in the Bible

First, the Bible states God will not let us know the age of the Earth. Some things he said he will keep to himself.

It's radioisotope dating which gives long ages. The problem is if one dates the same rocks using different radioisotopes such as potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead, or samarium-neodymium, then they give different ages of long time. On the creation science side, we can still use C-14 radiocarbon dating because the C-14 still exist. That will give us a younger Earth.

 

[james bond]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

If evolution was fact, then I could give you examples. But it doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy that would be needed for expansion of the universe. It's a question of what came first -- energy or matter? And someone like you doesn't have a clue.

Correct. Biological evolution doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy.

Did you believe biological evolution was supposed to explain what was before the beginning of life? That is a complete lack of understanding of the process of evolution.

I'm referring to atheist cosmology and evolutionary thinking. It goes to show you don't know about these areas.

Is there atheist cosmology as opposed to fundamentalist Christian cosmology? Tell us about fundamentalist Christian cosmology. What are the basic principles of fundamentalist Christian cosmology?

As to evolutionary thinking, what, exactly, is that?

You've given us your thoughts on supernatural creation, a young earth and literal "Biblical thinking'' but most of the planet accepts the fact that your literalist ''Biblical thinking'' is wrong. How to you account for that?

God gives us the correct order of how everything was created in Genesis in seven days. OTOH, none of you can answer how the Earth, universe, and everything in it originated. Look at the OP. He claims evolution is fact and is too stupid to explain it.

The flaw with your magical thinking is that the men who wrote the Bibles got the order of events in the Genesis fable wrong.

The humans just transcribed God's word. Science backs up the order of what is in Genesis. Your atheist theories have no order, events, or a logical argument for the beginning. Thus, evolution is usually wrong.

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

If evolution was fact, then I could give you examples. But it doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy that would be needed for expansion of the universe. It's a question of what came first -- energy or matter? And someone like you doesn't have a clue.

Correct. Biological evolution doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy.

Did you believe biological evolution was supposed to explain what was before the beginning of life? That is a complete lack of understanding of the process of evolution.

I'm referring to atheist cosmology and evolutionary thinking. It goes to show you don't know about these areas.

Is there atheist cosmology as opposed to fundamentalist Christian cosmology? Tell us about fundamentalist Christian cosmology. What are the basic principles of fundamentalist Christian cosmology?

As to evolutionary thinking, what, exactly, is that?

You've given us your thoughts on supernatural creation, a young earth and literal "Biblical thinking'' but most of the planet accepts the fact that your literalist ''Biblical thinking'' is wrong. How to you account for that?

God gives us the correct order of how everything was created in Genesis in seven days. OTOH, none of you can answer how the Earth, universe, and everything in it originated. Look at the OP. He claims evolution is fact and is too stupid to explain it.

The flaw with your magical thinking is that the men who wrote the Bibles got the order of events in the Genesis fable wrong.

The humans just transcribed God's word. Science backs up the order of what is in Genesis. Your atheist theories have no order, events, or a logical argument for the beginning. Thus, evolution is usually wrong.

No. There is no evidence humans transcribed any words of your gods. Fundamentalist Christians are always wrong about science matters.

Science does not back up the order of what is in Genesis.

The Scientific Method provides an orderly synthesis of hypothesis, theory and testable conclusion. So there’s that. The fundies screeching out “the gods did it” is simply another appeal to fear and ignorance.