Why do people still believe in macro evolution?

[Syriusly]

[
Again, there is no evidence that DNA has any ability to create new information. DNA itself is an evolutionary impossibility.

Yet DNA does itself indicate evolution.

Which you refuse to accept.

 

[Andylusion]

So the Bible isn't literal? Then how do you if ANYTHING it says is even remotely true? I've never understood people who say "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the fundamentals of Christianity".

The Bible, much likes one's faith, is up to one's own personal interpretation(s). That's why there are multiple denominations of people who have figured out the "correct" way of worship.

No. It isn't. Sorry. There is nothing in the Bible which dictates how an individual must worship. Thus there is no "interpretation" of how one must worship.

On the other hand, is says very clearly sleeping with someone you are not married to, and homosexuality, is a sin. There is no other interpretation of that.

Most denominations are simply we like doing X, which isn't defined in the Bible. That's fine. There are some denomination, very few, which say "we believe Y which is in the Bible, can be reinterpreted". Those are people who are sinners and wrong. You can't just change what the Bible says. Sorry. You are wrong.

I don't need to change what the Bible says, I just need to remember what Christ said. You can quote what ever you'd like from the law of man, but I'm still actually actually quite right with what I said. I simply understand the Bible differently than you do, and I'm still just as good in God's eye as anyone else.

But anyway, back to science.

But why do you need to remember anything that Christ said, if you can just 're-interprete' it to mean whatever suits you in the moment?

Words have specific meaning. If red can mean orange... then the word "red" has no real meaning anymore. The Bible is not the 'law of man', because if it is, then why believe it, anymore than any other man made law? Why not believe killing the infidels is perfectly acceptable?

You seem both very confused and very angry about the Bible and Christianity in general. That's cool though, I'm still right about what I said no matter how much it may vex you, and I'm still interested in the science that God created for us.

Hopefully, an interesting thread will be created about an interesting topic, and we can all have an interesting conversation about it, minus all the boring "my political dick is bigger than everyone else's!"

Oh, to dream, right?

lol... Angry about what? Well your opinion is your opinion.

It's a odd thing that every time someone can't respond to an argument, the default to "you must be angry"... as if that matters.

Let's say I'm not angry. Does that make your argument less valid, or mine more valid? Say I am angry. Does that make your argument more valid, and mine less valid?

See it's posts like yours that illustrate why discussion of science are never very scientific. When you use such irrelevant things like "you seem angry" as an argument.... there is no point in discussing the science, because you can't even agree on what the Bible says.

If I can't trust that you accept the statements of the Bible, which has remained unchanged for thousands of years......

Why bother talking about science? You'll just say "well my interpretation of science is....." or "You seem angry about science....".

What's the point? You have to have a solid foundation of logic, before we can discuss anything. And when you have basically already said you can just make up whatever you want with a thousands of years old text... then there is no point in talking science either.

If you don't believe that, then let's reverse positions. You start talking science in your next post, and I'll just respond with "yeah well my interpretation is....." and "You seem angry about science....". See how far you get with me giving you your own arguments. Good luck.

 

[Andylusion]

[
Again, there is no evidence that DNA has any ability to create new information. DNA itself is an evolutionary impossibility.

Yet DNA does itself indicate evolution.

Which you refuse to accept.

But it doesn't. The evidence shows that DNA is absolutely impossible to self create, and is impossible to add new information. In fact, the only known biological method for creating RNA, is from DNA, and a prerequisite for making DNA, is RNA.

DNA can't be created without RNA. And RNA can only be created from a living cell with DNA. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Evolution has no answer. G-d does.

The idea is impossible to avoid, unless you live in the magical evolution world of myth and fantasy.

 

[Steven_R]

What is the theory that you believe explains the diversity of life on Earth?

Yawwwwn

That I have no theory makes a wong theory not right, of course.

Only evidence does, Problem here: There is no evidence

Only billions of fossils, and the dna in every cell of your body, as well as the dna in all the cells in the other many organisms that inhabit this planet.

Again, there is no evidence that DNA has any ability to create new information. DNA itself is an evolutionary impossibility.

Dr. Ken Miller specifically covers that in his book Only A Theory. You're wrong, but feel free to let him know why he's wrong. Please report back to us what he says.

 

[SixFoot]

The Bible, much likes one's faith, is up to one's own personal interpretation(s). That's why there are multiple denominations of people who have figured out the "correct" way of worship.

No. It isn't. Sorry. There is nothing in the Bible which dictates how an individual must worship. Thus there is no "interpretation" of how one must worship.

On the other hand, is says very clearly sleeping with someone you are not married to, and homosexuality, is a sin. There is no other interpretation of that.

Most denominations are simply we like doing X, which isn't defined in the Bible. That's fine. There are some denomination, very few, which say "we believe Y which is in the Bible, can be reinterpreted". Those are people who are sinners and wrong. You can't just change what the Bible says. Sorry. You are wrong.

I don't need to change what the Bible says, I just need to remember what Christ said. You can quote what ever you'd like from the law of man, but I'm still actually actually quite right with what I said. I simply understand the Bible differently than you do, and I'm still just as good in God's eye as anyone else.

But anyway, back to science.

But why do you need to remember anything that Christ said, if you can just 're-interprete' it to mean whatever suits you in the moment?

Words have specific meaning. If red can mean orange... then the word "red" has no real meaning anymore. The Bible is not the 'law of man', because if it is, then why believe it, anymore than any other man made law? Why not believe killing the infidels is perfectly acceptable?

You seem both very confused and very angry about the Bible and Christianity in general. That's cool though, I'm still right about what I said no matter how much it may vex you, and I'm still interested in the science that God created for us.

Hopefully, an interesting thread will be created about an interesting topic, and we can all have an interesting conversation about it, minus all the boring "my political dick is bigger than everyone else's!"

Oh, to dream, right?

lol... Angry about what? Well your opinion is your opinion.

It's a odd thing that every time someone can't respond to an argument, the default to "you must be angry"... as if that matters.

<snip>

It does matter, to an extent. If you didn't seem so angry at the thought of me being both a Christian, and someone who gives credence to pretty much every leading scientific theory (including Evolution and the Big Bang), I'd be more inclined to provide an extremely thorough presentation of how I've come to my conclusions over the last 20 or so years of soul-searching and the understanding of our meek existence in this physical Brane. In fact, you would've already had it, and we'd both be well underway in expanding our horizons. I like being constructive most of the time.


Simple manners and courtesies go a long way for people seeking substance in their interactions. Introducing yourself in a manner that denies a person's personal faith and interpretations of a Book written way back in the Bronze Age, simply because you have a different opinion, is counter-productive and only serves to paint yourself as nothing more than an angry keyboard warrior who is intolerant of anything that doesn't fall in line with his/her beliefs, which is kind of a shame, because I'm sure you actually have a lot of useful facts and findings to share (your negative opinions, not so useful).


Hello sir or ma'am, nice to meet you.

 

[Syriusly]

Andylusion said: ↑

[​

Evolution has no answer. G-d does.

Apologies for misquoting the author originally.

As I said- we have evidence which supports the theory of Evolution- but there is no evidence of God- of any God

So of course you believe in God- and reject the theory of Evolution.

​

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Evolution has no answer. G-d does. .

And the evidence for God is?

We have evidence that supports the theory of evolution- we have no evidence at all for the existence of a God- any God.

So of course you believe in God- and reject the evidence of evolution.

What?????? I never wrote that! Nowhere!

I am not talking about god!

All I am saying is that there is NO EVIDENCE for macro-evolution.

Why is that so difficult for you?

 

[rightwinger]

Why do people still believe in macro-evolution?

There is not a shred of evidence that macro evolution is true!

And no , I am not a creationist, I just simply look for evidence and if there is none,

then I think it to be untrue.

To believe in macro evolution , against all odds, is , in my humble opinion, ridiculous.

Evolution is a FACT
God is a theory

 

[Syriusly]

Evolution has no answer. G-d does. .

And the evidence for God is?

We have evidence that supports the theory of evolution- we have no evidence at all for the existence of a God- any God.

So of course you believe in God- and reject the evidence of evolution.

What?????? I never wrote that! Nowhere!

I am not talking about god!

All I am saying is that there is NO EVIDENCE for macro-evolution.

Why is that so difficult for you?

My apologies for mis-quoting you- I don't know how that happened- I corrected my post.

And yes- there is evidence of Macro-Evolution- you just refuse to accept it.

You prefer not to have any theory which explains the diversity of life on Earth- rather than accept the only theory which corresponds to the evidence we have.

Which is why you have rejected every post spelling out the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

My apologies for mis-quoting you- I don't know how that happened- I corrected my post.

allright, accepted! Can happen. No problem and thanks for straighten that out.

And yes- there is evidence of Macro-Evolution- you just refuse to accept it.

Well, I once thought all that non-sense was true but not anymore.
Even math tells us it is impossible.

You prefer not to have any theory which explains the diversity of life on Earth- rather than accept the only theory which corresponds to the evidence we have.

That's my point! It doesn't!

Which is why you have rejected every post spelling out the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

No, I rejected it because it was no evidence at all

UNLESS YOU BELIEVE THE MACRO EVOLUTION NONSENSE!

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Evolution is a FACT

You know this how??

 

[PredFan]

Why do people still believe in macro-evolution?

Because it's the best explanation for what we see. It has a lot of data to support it.

There is not a shred of evidence that macro evolution is true!

We could argue that but lets say I give that to you. Evolution is the best explanation for the facts we have.

And no , I am not a creationist, I just simply look for evidence and if there is none,

then I think it to be untrue.

That's a pretty ignorant stance.

To believe in macro evolution , against all odds, is , in my humble opinion, ridiculous.

It isn't against all odds. In fact the odds are extremely high that Macro-Evolution is true.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Why do people still believe in macro-evolution?

Because it's the best explanation for what we see. It has a lot of data to support it.

There is not a shred of evidence that macro evolution is true!

We could argue that but lets say I give that to you. Evolution is the best explanation for the facts we have.

And no , I am not a creationist, I just simply look for evidence and if there is none,

then I think it to be untrue.

That's a pretty ignorant stance.

To believe in macro evolution , against all odds, is , in my humble opinion, ridiculous.

It isn't against all odds. In fact the odds are extremely high that Macro-Evolution is true.

where is the evidence then, mate?

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is a FACT

You know this how??

Easy

It is supported by fossil, biological, rock strata and DNA evidence
There is no supporting evidence of God

You lose

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Evolution is a FACT

You know this how??

Easy

It is supported by fossil, biological, rock strata and DNA evidence
There is no supporting evidence of God

You lose

I am nowhere talking about god~

fossils? lol even biologist say there is no proof in the fossils!

Besides some math will show you it is impossible.


I don't care about losing or winning, all I want is the truth!

I seems to be a game for you.

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is a FACT

You know this how??

Easy

It is supported by fossil, biological, rock strata and DNA evidence
There is no supporting evidence of God

You lose

I am nowhere talking about god~

fossils? lol even biologist say there is no proof in the fossils!

Besides some math will show you it is impossible.


I don't care about losing or winning, all I want is the truth!

I seems to be a game for you.

What is your creation theory?
Maybe we can discuss it

 

[ObligationLaunch]

What is your creation theory?
Maybe we can discuss it

creation theory????

You really don't get it now, do you? I am no creationist.

My ONLY point is that there is no macro evolution because there is no E V I D E N C E
But, probably because you can;t your head around this, uou have to think I am into crearonism


Really, the ONLY thing I do is rejecting macro evolution because the lack of any evidence.

Difficult eh?

 

[rightwinger]

What is your creation theory?
Maybe we can discuss it

creation theory????

You really don't get it now, do you? I am no creationist.

My ONLY point is that there is no macro evolution because there is no E V I D E N C E
But, probably because you can;t your head around this, uou have to think I am into crearonism


Really, the ONLY thing I do is rejecting macro evolution because the lack of any evidence.

Difficult eh?

Explain the evolution of increasingly complex forms of life in layers of rock strata without using macro evolution

 

[sealybobo]

Why do people still believe in macro-evolution?

There is not a shred of evidence that macro evolution is true!

And no , I am not a creationist, I just simply look for evidence and if there is none,

then I think it to be untrue.

To believe in macro evolution , against all odds, is , in my humble opinion, ridiculous.

What's your alternate theory?

 

[sealybobo]

What is your creation theory?
Maybe we can discuss it

creation theory????

You really don't get it now, do you? I am no creationist.

My ONLY point is that there is no macro evolution because there is no E V I D E N C E
But, probably because you can;t your head around this, uou have to think I am into crearonism


Really, the ONLY thing I do is rejecting macro evolution because the lack of any evidence.

Difficult eh?

Do you have a different theory for all thediversity?