Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[james bond]

I'll discuss a few of your points below because you have gone looney as I have calmly and successfully rebutted your arguments.

It’s nice that you have chosen to self-congratulate on rebutting my arguments but You should first make an attempt to do that. I noticed you retreated from addressing my comments with regard to prayer, rattling bones, etc. as a cure for disease, when science has provided those cures.

Your refusal to advance any understanding of the methodology within the Scientific Method suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.

So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of “objective reality” has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is “true.”

Wrong, creation scientists do perform research and experiments. We see that they have been done throughout history and Noah's global flood was the accepted geology of the earth in the past. Do you know anything about the history of uniformitarianism? Do you know how it influenced evolution? I don't think you know what you are talking about as atheist science (secular science) has brainwashed you. So right off the bat, your statements are way, way, way wrong.

You’re having some difficulty furthering a consistent argument. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?

You wrote: “As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science".

Yes, I agree. Tests and experiments go against creation science. That's because creation science is not science at all but religious fundamentalism. You're unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as “conjecture” are simply used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism. That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your claims as unsupported.

Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not “encompassed” by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a “true” understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.

It just goes to show how wacko you've become in discussing your wrong worldview of believing monkeys to humans.

Let's go back to uniformitarianism and apply the concept to monkeys. If today's science shows us what the past was like, then why can't we use our observations of today's monkeys to explain how monkeys were in the past? None are bipedal. They are knuckle walkers. All have small cranial capacity. The sclera of their eyes are dark brown, not whilte like humans. None have showed any signs of evolving into an ape-human.

Unfortunately. You do typify the result of the ID'iot creationism / fundamentalist Christian cabal. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts. Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

We're going way beyond the scope of this thread, but there is the soft tissue and blood evidence of dinosaurs. It shows that dinosaurs were cold blooded like reptiles. We also have found that they could not have evolved the breathing system of birds. Thus, birds from dinosaurs could not have happened. No macroevolution like humans did not evolve from monkeys. We also found that there was fraud committed with feathered dinosaurs a few times already. Your evidence for feathered dinosaurs has been shown to be human-made for profit. If the evidence is everywhere, then why buy stuff from peddlers in China or Myanmar?

I'm not sure you understand what you're complaining about. You make a great many unsupported assertions and make no attempt to support them. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has every right to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.

Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their own standards religionists must give equal weight to all claims based upon faith as being just as likely true as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.

Atheist scientists and atheists have some weird false beliefs that betray them such as not believing in God, the supernatural and his word the Bible. They also believe in false science of evolution and evolutionary thinking. The closest thing I could agree with evo is natural selection and being against gmo foods.

More unsupported assertions. And, by the way, much of the planet does not believe in your partisan gods. Your polytheistic gods are merely one conception of gods. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary? Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

So far, you have not been able to show any observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, nor experimental evidence of evolution. The long times of the evolution based on radiometric times have questionable assumptions. So does the philosophy (religion) of uniformitarianism. If uniformitarianism is true, then there would be on need to start putting in the philosophy of catastrophism. The creation scientists do not mix any uniformitarian philosophies with catastrophism. Even the threat of an asteroid(s) hitting the earth follows creation science. The mountain of evidence for evolution has been reduced to rubble.

There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.

You are in need of new conspiracy theories if you insist that biological evolution is just a theory. While you want to believe that Evilutionist scientists are all co-conspirators in some vast conspiracy you envision, you will need something better than paranoia to displace science. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

First, you are misstating what I said a second time when I was addressing "your" hypothetical experiment. Thus, I'll claim victory in regards to that argument as you continue to misstate and continue to put words in my mouth.

You also further misstate and try to tie me with ID. I've clearly said I was for creation science and not ID. Thus, I win again.

As for "Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry."

There never was a common ancestor to humans. There never was a common ancestor to monkeys. Let's use what we see today as common ancestors. If you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, then you get a mule. However, that's as far as you can go. The mule had a horse and donkey as ancestors. Furthermore, you still haven't explained how sexual reproduction came about from asexual reproduction.

Moreover, creation scientists do not use "faith." It is the evos who use faith to believe in evolution and evolutionary thinking. Creation scientists use the Bible as hypothesis and that worked fine until Charles Lyell came along.

Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution. Natural selection only applies to microevolution. Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen. I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis. So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.

Have you noticed that you are the only individual proclaiming to have “won” an argument you have yet to make?

Your dismissal of evolution is right out of the ID/creationist/supernaturalist playbook. Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe and a very old earth? You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you may believe it to be.

All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.

Once again, to support your extremist position for supernatural intervention you need to:

1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gods, and then,

2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gods had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.

When will you provide such evidence?

There really isn't much point in discussing further because as I said before you have gone looney tunes and off the topic of discussion. I was nice and discussed and presented my rebuttals and arguments to you. However, you continue to misconstrue what I've said and paint me in a negative light. You put words in my mouth that I didn't say. On top of that, you continue the same line of assertions and ad hominems instead of addressing anything I said.

The question is when will you provide the evidence for monkeys to humans? Do you know what you are talking about?

There is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science. That you continue with such nonsense displays an appalling lack of knowledge and willful ignorance on your part.

Unfortunately, you have chosen to simply repeat the slogans and misinformation furthered by the most notorious fundamentalist ministries,

If there is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science, then case closed. You have agreed that I've won the argument regarding the thread.

I'm not sure what slogans and misinformation you are talking about. I've argued creation science and science against evolution.

 

[Hollie]

It’s nice that you have chosen to self-congratulate on rebutting my arguments but You should first make an attempt to do that. I noticed you retreated from addressing my comments with regard to prayer, rattling bones, etc. as a cure for disease, when science has provided those cures.

Your refusal to advance any understanding of the methodology within the Scientific Method suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.

So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of “objective reality” has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is “true.”


You’re having some difficulty furthering a consistent argument. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?

You wrote: “As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science".

Yes, I agree. Tests and experiments go against creation science. That's because creation science is not science at all but religious fundamentalism. You're unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as “conjecture” are simply used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism. That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your claims as unsupported.

Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not “encompassed” by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a “true” understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.




Unfortunately. You do typify the result of the ID'iot creationism / fundamentalist Christian cabal. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts. Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.



I'm not sure you understand what you're complaining about. You make a great many unsupported assertions and make no attempt to support them. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has every right to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.

Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their own standards religionists must give equal weight to all claims based upon faith as being just as likely true as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.


More unsupported assertions. And, by the way, much of the planet does not believe in your partisan gods. Your polytheistic gods are merely one conception of gods. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary? Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.

You are in need of new conspiracy theories if you insist that biological evolution is just a theory. While you want to believe that Evilutionist scientists are all co-conspirators in some vast conspiracy you envision, you will need something better than paranoia to displace science. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

First, you are misstating what I said a second time when I was addressing "your" hypothetical experiment. Thus, I'll claim victory in regards to that argument as you continue to misstate and continue to put words in my mouth.

You also further misstate and try to tie me with ID. I've clearly said I was for creation science and not ID. Thus, I win again.

As for "Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry."

There never was a common ancestor to humans. There never was a common ancestor to monkeys. Let's use what we see today as common ancestors. If you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, then you get a mule. However, that's as far as you can go. The mule had a horse and donkey as ancestors. Furthermore, you still haven't explained how sexual reproduction came about from asexual reproduction.

Moreover, creation scientists do not use "faith." It is the evos who use faith to believe in evolution and evolutionary thinking. Creation scientists use the Bible as hypothesis and that worked fine until Charles Lyell came along.

Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution. Natural selection only applies to microevolution. Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen. I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis. So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.

Have you noticed that you are the only individual proclaiming to have “won” an argument you have yet to make?

Your dismissal of evolution is right out of the ID/creationist/supernaturalist playbook. Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe and a very old earth? You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you may believe it to be.

All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.

Once again, to support your extremist position for supernatural intervention you need to:

1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gods, and then,

2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gods had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.

When will you provide such evidence?

There really isn't much point in discussing further because as I said before you have gone looney tunes and off the topic of discussion. I was nice and discussed and presented my rebuttals and arguments to you. However, you continue to misconstrue what I've said and paint me in a negative light. You put words in my mouth that I didn't say. On top of that, you continue the same line of assertions and ad hominems instead of addressing anything I said.

The question is when will you provide the evidence for monkeys to humans? Do you know what you are talking about?

There is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science. That you continue with such nonsense displays an appalling lack of knowledge and willful ignorance on your part.

Unfortunately, you have chosen to simply repeat the slogans and misinformation furthered by the most notorious fundamentalist ministries,

If there is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science, then case closed. You have agreed that I've won the argument regarding the thread.

I'm not sure what slogans and misinformation you are talking about. I've argued creation science and science against evolution.

Case is not closed. You have retreated to your usual childish tactic of declaring you have "won". You have presented nothing to support your claim of "monkeys to humans". You have presented no evidence of a 6,000 year old earth. Your attempt at argument consists of simply reiterating nonsense slogans you copied from your ID/fundamentalist ministries.

 

[james bond]

First, you are misstating what I said a second time when I was addressing "your" hypothetical experiment. Thus, I'll claim victory in regards to that argument as you continue to misstate and continue to put words in my mouth.

You also further misstate and try to tie me with ID. I've clearly said I was for creation science and not ID. Thus, I win again.

As for "Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry."

There never was a common ancestor to humans. There never was a common ancestor to monkeys. Let's use what we see today as common ancestors. If you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, then you get a mule. However, that's as far as you can go. The mule had a horse and donkey as ancestors. Furthermore, you still haven't explained how sexual reproduction came about from asexual reproduction.

Moreover, creation scientists do not use "faith." It is the evos who use faith to believe in evolution and evolutionary thinking. Creation scientists use the Bible as hypothesis and that worked fine until Charles Lyell came along.

Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution. Natural selection only applies to microevolution. Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen. I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis. So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.

Have you noticed that you are the only individual proclaiming to have “won” an argument you have yet to make?

Your dismissal of evolution is right out of the ID/creationist/supernaturalist playbook. Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe and a very old earth? You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you may believe it to be.

All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.

Once again, to support your extremist position for supernatural intervention you need to:

1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gods, and then,

2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gods had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.

When will you provide such evidence?

There really isn't much point in discussing further because as I said before you have gone looney tunes and off the topic of discussion. I was nice and discussed and presented my rebuttals and arguments to you. However, you continue to misconstrue what I've said and paint me in a negative light. You put words in my mouth that I didn't say. On top of that, you continue the same line of assertions and ad hominems instead of addressing anything I said.

The question is when will you provide the evidence for monkeys to humans? Do you know what you are talking about?

There is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science. That you continue with such nonsense displays an appalling lack of knowledge and willful ignorance on your part.

Unfortunately, you have chosen to simply repeat the slogans and misinformation furthered by the most notorious fundamentalist ministries,

If there is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science, then case closed. You have agreed that I've won the argument regarding the thread.

I'm not sure what slogans and misinformation you are talking about. I've argued creation science and science against evolution.

Case is not closed. You have retreated to your usual childish tactic of declaring you have "won". You have presented nothing to support your claim of "monkeys to humans". You have presented no evidence of a 6,000 year old earth. Your attempt at argument consists of simply reiterating nonsense slogans you copied from your ID/fundamentalist ministries.

Why would I state "monkey to humans?" I'm the guy who says that macroevolution didn't happen.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because evolution is the attempt to circumvent the CREATOR and propose a way for man to develop "naturally".

Ridiculous, paranoid nonsense. For one,the theory of evolution exists because the evidence took us to it, not because someone dreamt up a scheme to circumvent your particular, preferred nugget of magical nonsense.

Second, a creationist can point at evolution and merely call it a mechanism of creation.

So, don't attempt to frame your tantrum in the context of "defending creationism". You are doing no such thing. You are defending a very specific creation myth, to wit: the hilariously goofy and demonstrably false Bible creation myth.

 

[Hollie]

Have you noticed that you are the only individual proclaiming to have “won” an argument you have yet to make?

Your dismissal of evolution is right out of the ID/creationist/supernaturalist playbook. Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe and a very old earth? You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you may believe it to be.

All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.

Once again, to support your extremist position for supernatural intervention you need to:

1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gods, and then,

2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gods had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.

When will you provide such evidence?

There really isn't much point in discussing further because as I said before you have gone looney tunes and off the topic of discussion. I was nice and discussed and presented my rebuttals and arguments to you. However, you continue to misconstrue what I've said and paint me in a negative light. You put words in my mouth that I didn't say. On top of that, you continue the same line of assertions and ad hominems instead of addressing anything I said.

The question is when will you provide the evidence for monkeys to humans? Do you know what you are talking about?

There is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science. That you continue with such nonsense displays an appalling lack of knowledge and willful ignorance on your part.

Unfortunately, you have chosen to simply repeat the slogans and misinformation furthered by the most notorious fundamentalist ministries,

If there is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science, then case closed. You have agreed that I've won the argument regarding the thread.

I'm not sure what slogans and misinformation you are talking about. I've argued creation science and science against evolution.

Case is not closed. You have retreated to your usual childish tactic of declaring you have "won". You have presented nothing to support your claim of "monkeys to humans". You have presented no evidence of a 6,000 year old earth. Your attempt at argument consists of simply reiterating nonsense slogans you copied from your ID/fundamentalist ministries.

Why would I state "monkey to humans?" I'm the guy who says that macroevolution didn't happen.

Another of your unsupported claims. Try here for an explanation of terms and definitions you're struggling with.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

How odd that there are relevant examples of what your creation ministries call "macro evolution" which you confuse with biological evolution.

 

[Pete7469]

I know BlackFlag is a monkey. Not sure where it came from though.

 

[BlackFlag]

I know BlackFlag is a monkey. Not sure where it came from though.

Seek attention from someone else, lil’ pup

 

[fncceo]

The truth is even being a believer may not get one into heaven. Satan doesn't make it easier for believers. We have theistic evolutionists. We also have those who end up going off the righteous path. I think God intended for all of us to be in heaven in the Garden of Eden, but that chance was lost. Jesus' sacrifice gave us all a second chance. I'm not sure whether one gets another chance beyond that such as purgatory. I think Christians have come to the realization that there is no limbo. Purgatory and limbo are places that Catholicism proposed.

None of this came from monkeys. Certainly, one can't get into heaven believing in monkeys .

I believe in monkeys. I've seen them.

Do you recognize any common ancestors? I don't. My ancestors do not have tails.

I'm sure you've been told this before, but apes, monkeys, gibbons, are not common ancestors of humans (according to the Theory of Evolution to which you refer).

If you go back far enough, humans and apes, humans and fish, humans and protozoa, have common ancestors. Some of which did in fact have tails.

Tell me where your pic of monkeys come in then. In all of these charts, it shows the same monkeys we see today in the distant past (uniformitarian thinking?). Below are three common ancestor trees you can use. Yet, when I use today's monkeys, I'm told they aren't the same as in the past. It's a one-sided argument or cherry picking fallacy.

How about this one? It's really a joke, so people should be laughing.

You might want to take a closer look at your 'charts'. Do you know what 'split' means? Those charts indicate that some of the descendants of a common ancestor split from the ancestor and developed one way. Other's split and developed another. Yet others split off and went in another direction. Because they come from a common progenitor, they will have traits in common ... that is why they are categorized as hominids or hylobates, and others. Those charts, even as simplified as they are, don't indicate that apes turned into humans. They show that they have a common ancestry as they developed.

The bottom picture, so widely known and often parodied, implies transition, but it really is just showing the genetic similarities between different branches of the same common trunk.

It might be easier to visualize if you think of an example from artificial selection. Artificial selection, or breeding, happens on a much faster timeline with human intervention. But, the mechanisms are similar.

Every dog on earth has a common ancestor, the wolf. Trace back the lineage of every dog far enough and they all go back to a progenitor wolf. When men first began to interact with the wolf, he favored the wolf that would take food from him and killed the ones who attacked him. That means that some wolves, developed in one way, more human tolerant, and another branch went the other way, seeing humans only as food. The human friendly wolves were bred by humans and traits that humans wanted were allowed to survive, other traits were destroyed. This has gone on for tens of thousands of years and now we have chihuahuas.

A wolf can't turn into a chihuahua any more than a chihuahua can man up (dog up) and become a wolf. Wolves didn't become chihuahuas, but they do have a common ancestor who was a wolf.

Take out the human intervention of special selection and allow natural selection to do the same thing, only over a much longer time scale with a lot more mistakes, and you get an idea how selection works.

Where evolution differs from natural selection is that natural selection is the mechanism that causes mutations to become a different species in response to the needs of the environment, evolution is the concept that life can, over time, change from one form into another.

The theory of evolution doesn't preclude a belief in G-d. It simply explains a smart way in which G-d might go about creating life in so much diversity and adapted suitably to every environment. G-d, having access to infinite time, wouldn't need to hand-sculpt every creature from a human to an amoeba. He could, simple create a few elements at a single time, and allow time and molecular biology to do its work. G-d working smarter, not harder.

Of course, that would mean the literal interpretation of scripture would be problematic. But, evolution is the least of problems when trying to reconcile a literal interpretation with scripture. Some more perplexing problems might be ... where did Cain's wife come from? Incest? Since there are currently as many as five million undiscovered species of life on Earth, were they all on The Ark and we just forgot about them? How did kangaroos get from Central Asia to Australia, did they swim? If they migrated, isn't it odd that no kangaroos were ever seen anywhere else?

An entire book could be written (and many have) about the problems of taking scripture literally instead of metaphorically so I wont' repeat all the arguments. But, if you accept that there are problems with literal interpretation, you have to at least consider the fact that G-d, infinitely wise and powerful, might choose a smarter way to create life than that of a maker of clay pots.

Food for thought.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Homo Sapiens are apes, not monkeys.

I used to be opposed to Evolution as a theory but the evidence is just overwhelming.

This does not contradict the concept of the Creator or the relevance of religion especially Christianity.

Genesis is not a manual of modern biological science. It is a collection of stories with various moral lessons and we do not know why the authors (Moses, etc) included them in their books that were compiled into Genesis. Moses was a prince of Egypt and had access to alot of different mythologies of his day. The Holy Spirit guided him to include some stories rather than others, so there is still a moral imperative to these myths. How factual they are as opposed to allegory is a matter of personal opinion.

To reject modern science because of a personal interpretation of ancient morality tales seems misguided to me.

 

[LittleNipper]

I'll discuss a few of your points below because you have gone looney as I have calmly and successfully rebutted your arguments.

It’s nice that you have chosen to self-congratulate on rebutting my arguments but You should first make an attempt to do that. I noticed you retreated from addressing my comments with regard to prayer, rattling bones, etc. as a cure for disease, when science has provided those cures.

Your refusal to advance any understanding of the methodology within the Scientific Method suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.

So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of “objective reality” has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is “true.”

Wrong, creation scientists do perform research and experiments. We see that they have been done throughout history and Noah's global flood was the accepted geology of the earth in the past. Do you know anything about the history of uniformitarianism? Do you know how it influenced evolution? I don't think you know what you are talking about as atheist science (secular science) has brainwashed you. So right off the bat, your statements are way, way, way wrong.

You’re having some difficulty furthering a consistent argument. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?

You wrote: “As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science".

Yes, I agree. Tests and experiments go against creation science. That's because creation science is not science at all but religious fundamentalism. You're unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as “conjecture” are simply used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism. That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your claims as unsupported.

Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not “encompassed” by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a “true” understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.

It just goes to show how wacko you've become in discussing your wrong worldview of believing monkeys to humans.

Let's go back to uniformitarianism and apply the concept to monkeys. If today's science shows us what the past was like, then why can't we use our observations of today's monkeys to explain how monkeys were in the past? None are bipedal. They are knuckle walkers. All have small cranial capacity. The sclera of their eyes are dark brown, not whilte like humans. None have showed any signs of evolving into an ape-human.

Unfortunately. You do typify the result of the ID'iot creationism / fundamentalist Christian cabal. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts. Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

We're going way beyond the scope of this thread, but there is the soft tissue and blood evidence of dinosaurs. It shows that dinosaurs were cold blooded like reptiles. We also have found that they could not have evolved the breathing system of birds. Thus, birds from dinosaurs could not have happened. No macroevolution like humans did not evolve from monkeys. We also found that there was fraud committed with feathered dinosaurs a few times already. Your evidence for feathered dinosaurs has been shown to be human-made for profit. If the evidence is everywhere, then why buy stuff from peddlers in China or Myanmar?

I'm not sure you understand what you're complaining about. You make a great many unsupported assertions and make no attempt to support them. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has every right to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.

Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their own standards religionists must give equal weight to all claims based upon faith as being just as likely true as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.

Atheist scientists and atheists have some weird false beliefs that betray them such as not believing in God, the supernatural and his word the Bible. They also believe in false science of evolution and evolutionary thinking. The closest thing I could agree with evo is natural selection and being against gmo foods.

More unsupported assertions. And, by the way, much of the planet does not believe in your partisan gods. Your polytheistic gods are merely one conception of gods. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary? Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

So far, you have not been able to show any observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, nor experimental evidence of evolution. The long times of the evolution based on radiometric times have questionable assumptions. So does the philosophy (religion) of uniformitarianism. If uniformitarianism is true, then there would be on need to start putting in the philosophy of catastrophism. The creation scientists do not mix any uniformitarian philosophies with catastrophism. Even the threat of an asteroid(s) hitting the earth follows creation science. The mountain of evidence for evolution has been reduced to rubble.

There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.

You are in need of new conspiracy theories if you insist that biological evolution is just a theory. While you want to believe that Evilutionist scientists are all co-conspirators in some vast conspiracy you envision, you will need something better than paranoia to displace science. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

First, you are misstating what I said a second time when I was addressing "your" hypothetical experiment. Thus, I'll claim victory in regards to that argument as you continue to misstate and continue to put words in my mouth.

You also further misstate and try to tie me with ID. I've clearly said I was for creation science and not ID. Thus, I win again.

As for "Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry."

There never was a common ancestor to humans. There never was a common ancestor to monkeys. Let's use what we see today as common ancestors. If you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, then you get a mule. However, that's as far as you can go. The mule had a horse and donkey as ancestors. Furthermore, you still haven't explained how sexual reproduction came about from asexual reproduction.

Moreover, creation scientists do not use "faith." It is the evos who use faith to believe in evolution and evolutionary thinking. Creation scientists use the Bible as hypothesis and that worked fine until Charles Lyell came along.

Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution. Natural selection only applies to microevolution. Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen. I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis. So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.

Have you noticed that you are the only individual proclaiming to have “won” an argument you have yet to make?

Your dismissal of evolution is right out of the ID/creationist/supernaturalist playbook. Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe and a very old earth? You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you may believe it to be.

All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.

Once again, to support your extremist position for supernatural intervention you need to:

1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gods, and then,

2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gods had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.

When will you provide such evidence?

There really isn't much point in discussing further because as I said before you have gone looney tunes and off the topic of discussion. I was nice and discussed and presented my rebuttals and arguments to you. However, you continue to misconstrue what I've said and paint me in a negative light. You put words in my mouth that I didn't say. On top of that, you continue the same line of assertions and ad hominems instead of addressing anything I said.

The question is when will you provide the evidence for monkeys to humans? Do you know what you are talking about?

There is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science. That you continue with such nonsense displays an appalling lack of knowledge and willful ignorance on your part.

Unfortunately, you have chosen to simply repeat the slogans and misinformation furthered by the most notorious fundamentalist ministries,

There is NO proof that Humans evolved from anything. They were created by GOD from the dust. How GOD created monkeys, chimps, and gorillas is up for grabs. However, GOD created them in one day and man on another. And the evolution presented in public school infers that monkeys and apes all share some COMMON ANCESTOR with humans...

 

[Hollie]

It’s nice that you have chosen to self-congratulate on rebutting my arguments but You should first make an attempt to do that. I noticed you retreated from addressing my comments with regard to prayer, rattling bones, etc. as a cure for disease, when science has provided those cures.

Your refusal to advance any understanding of the methodology within the Scientific Method suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.

So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of “objective reality” has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is “true.”


You’re having some difficulty furthering a consistent argument. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?

You wrote: “As for your tests and experiments, that goes against creation science".

Yes, I agree. Tests and experiments go against creation science. That's because creation science is not science at all but religious fundamentalism. You're unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as “conjecture” are simply used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism. That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your claims as unsupported.

Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not “encompassed” by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a “true” understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.




Unfortunately. You do typify the result of the ID'iot creationism / fundamentalist Christian cabal. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts. Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.



I'm not sure you understand what you're complaining about. You make a great many unsupported assertions and make no attempt to support them. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has every right to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.

Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their own standards religionists must give equal weight to all claims based upon faith as being just as likely true as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.


More unsupported assertions. And, by the way, much of the planet does not believe in your partisan gods. Your polytheistic gods are merely one conception of gods. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary? Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.

You are in need of new conspiracy theories if you insist that biological evolution is just a theory. While you want to believe that Evilutionist scientists are all co-conspirators in some vast conspiracy you envision, you will need something better than paranoia to displace science. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

First, you are misstating what I said a second time when I was addressing "your" hypothetical experiment. Thus, I'll claim victory in regards to that argument as you continue to misstate and continue to put words in my mouth.

You also further misstate and try to tie me with ID. I've clearly said I was for creation science and not ID. Thus, I win again.

As for "Man was never an ape or monkey. Man was never descended from an ape or monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry."

There never was a common ancestor to humans. There never was a common ancestor to monkeys. Let's use what we see today as common ancestors. If you take a horse and cross it with a donkey, then you get a mule. However, that's as far as you can go. The mule had a horse and donkey as ancestors. Furthermore, you still haven't explained how sexual reproduction came about from asexual reproduction.

Moreover, creation scientists do not use "faith." It is the evos who use faith to believe in evolution and evolutionary thinking. Creation scientists use the Bible as hypothesis and that worked fine until Charles Lyell came along.

Species change and new species emerge, but not macroevolution. Natural selection only applies to microevolution. Thus, monkeys to apes and dinosaurs to birds did not happen. I provided the evidence to destroy those hypothesis. So, evolution has been effectively been destroyed in this thread.

Have you noticed that you are the only individual proclaiming to have “won” an argument you have yet to make?

Your dismissal of evolution is right out of the ID/creationist/supernaturalist playbook. Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe and a very old earth? You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you may believe it to be.

All the available evidence suggests that life on this planet is the product of naturally occurring processes.

Once again, to support your extremist position for supernatural intervention you need to:

1) provide credible evidence for one or more of your gods, and then,

2) provide credible evidence that one or more of your gods had direct involvement with the implementation of magical gardens, talking serpents and the magical *poofing* of the diversity of biological life on the planet.

When will you provide such evidence?

There really isn't much point in discussing further because as I said before you have gone looney tunes and off the topic of discussion. I was nice and discussed and presented my rebuttals and arguments to you. However, you continue to misconstrue what I've said and paint me in a negative light. You put words in my mouth that I didn't say. On top of that, you continue the same line of assertions and ad hominems instead of addressing anything I said.

The question is when will you provide the evidence for monkeys to humans? Do you know what you are talking about?

There is no evidence of "monkeys to humans" that is supported by relevant science. That you continue with such nonsense displays an appalling lack of knowledge and willful ignorance on your part.

Unfortunately, you have chosen to simply repeat the slogans and misinformation furthered by the most notorious fundamentalist ministries,

There is NO proof that Humans evolved from anything. They were created by GOD from the dust. How GOD created monkeys, chimps, and monkeys is up for grabs. However, GOD did it in one day.

Your comments are at odds with science.


Darwin s Theory of Evolution Definition Evidence
Natural selection

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology.


Do you believe that all the complimentary disciplines of science, to include biology, chemistry, paleontology, physics, etc., and the global community of scientists representing virtually all of the globes colleges and teaching universities are involved in some worldwide conspiracy involving "evilution"?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is NO proof that Humans evolved from anything.

False. There are mountains of evidence. That is why you would fail a 7th grade science test.

 

[james bond]

Ridiculous, paranoid nonsense. For one,the theory of evolution exists because the evidence took us to it, not because someone dreamt up a scheme to circumvent your particular, preferred nugget of magical nonsense.

The true evidence took us to God as science was founded to honor God. Science backs up the bible.

To the contrary, the ridiculousness, false delusions and paranoia started with anti-catastrophism, anti-belief in God and fake science and theories of uniformitarianism from an atheist Scottish farmer named James Hutton. This was always about being against God at the foundation. After all, true science was founded upon God.

Maybe we should trace who the real paranoid ones are. Those who worry about global warming. Those who worry about right and wrong and turn to science for moral values. They worry about Donald Trump. They favor same-sex marriage and abortion. False science created to replace the true one. Darwin made up evolution to replace God. Evolution was created to replace God.

The Science of Right and Wrong

Maybe it's the marijuana.

Why can pot make you paranoid?

Second, a creationist can point at evolution and merely call it a mechanism of creation.

There are some atheists who believe in God. The closet believers.

Do atheists secretly believe in God?

Evolution could not be a mechanism of creation. If it did, then it circumvents the Bible. This is evidence how Satan handed down uniformitarianism and evolution to Nimrod. You don't want to be a nimrod like you. You don't want to be a paranoid like you. You've been exposed Fort Fun Indiana. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean God and the believers aren't after you.

 

[RWS]

To settle this argument,

I'm not taking my Visa card with me when I'm gone.

You have to leave your Visa card and all the things you bought behind. Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die? That said, there is more to life than that if you believe in Jesus and creation science. God reveals himself and then one starts to understand creation science is greater that evolution and evolutionary thinking. It's true science vs false science.

But your religion wants our money now, while alive. I'm constantly getting asked to donate to a religion that has more money than I can possibly conceive. Why would it be different later?

Did they suddenly make enough when I die? Or are they still gonna be hounding me for more?

Will I have to face God and apologize that I cannot pay the Heaven rent? And get sent elsewhere?

God is supposedly in control of everything. But like Carlin said... He seems to have a lot of trouble with money...

I know fncceo is being facetious, but there's a deeper truth beyond what he intends, too. I enjoy his humor. It's quite good.

Usually, Christian churches ask for 10% of your yearly income as tithing. I have to agree that people are not comfortable with it. They are asked to buy Christian books, too. Some churches are heavier handed than most, but I don't think one has to feel they have to give 10%. I try to do the 10%, but only if I feel comfortable in doing that for the year. Give if you feel comfortable.

What does the Bible say about Christian tithing? Should a Christian tithe?

Are Christians Required to Give 10% of Their Income to the Church? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

There are other worthwhile charities, too, such as Salvation Army.

Yet, your point isn't about giving. It's more atheist criticism of Christians and I think I addressed that above.

Christians believe once a person has committed to Jesus, then they become good trees and good trees bear good fruit. The result is faith + good works as in Book of James. It doesn't mean that good deeds or giving and buying your way into heaven gets one into heaven.

But if God is all-powerful, and Jesus is too, why do they need people to raise money?

They can create it themselves, in whatever means necessary. "Poof! There's some gold bars for you!"

What happens, in the current system, is that corrupt people keep most of the money being raised by well-wishing people, in whatever form they donate to the Church.

Some of it surely goes back to altruistic intentions, to keep people giving. And I understand that a lot of it goes towards maintenance. But most of it disappears into corrupt coffers, or stashed away in some hidden Vatican fund.

My point is, with the vast amount of money and volunteer work that is donated by Christians, that should cover maintenance, and also stop people from starving and suffering in this world.

But then, if they stop the starvation and suffering, it will be hard to generate more money without conquering... It's catch-22.

But an altruistic religion, with almost unlimited funds, and a righteous God that can make money appear from thin air, should stop all world suffering first, and worry about followers later.

That..... would get me to follow a religion.

Man is participating in GOD's work and gets to witness GOD working through such experiences. And honestly, I regard the Roman Catholic church as self servicing. I do not consider the pope as the head of Christ's CHURCH. And this is why the Reformation happened. That was the Holy Spirit shaking up and reviving His CHURCH. The separation of the sheep from the goats.

The suffering of the world is the direct result of man's choice to separate themselves from the love of GOD. The more people feel secure in their own lifestyles and creature comforts the more they rely on their own devices. That is human nature and it historically happens over and over again. The prosperity of the 1890's lead to the humanistic world views that propelled Germany and the world into the GREAT WORLD WAR. The prosperity of the 20's lead to the despair of the 30's and World War II. The prosperity of the 50's and 60's lead to the drug and sex induced despair of the 70's and the manipulated energy crisis...

You miss the entire point. There is mass starvation and suffering in third world countries. The church does donate some money to help them, and provide volunteers. But they don't fix them, they do just enough to keep the suffering going.

They could FIX it, if they wanted.... But they don't.

They have the resources to eradicate much of the suffering that is going on. But they only do a little bit (just to keep followers thinking they are altruistic). They could fix the problems, but choose not to.

That is not an altruistic religion that is worth following with blind faith. I do appreciate what they do, but they can absolutely do a billion-times-fold more. It seems to be more for show, than for real help.

And that's how Christianity rolls. If they fixed it, people may stop donating thinking that the issues are fixed.

And then, where are they gonna get even more money?!?

Better to leave people suffering, to guarantee future profits.

 

[RWS]

To settle this argument,

I'm not taking my Visa card with me when I'm gone.

You have to leave your Visa card and all the things you bought behind. Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die? That said, there is more to life than that if you believe in Jesus and creation science. God reveals himself and then one starts to understand creation science is greater that evolution and evolutionary thinking. It's true science vs false science.

But your religion wants our money now, while alive. I'm constantly getting asked to donate to a religion that has more money than I can possibly conceive. Why would it be different later?

Did they suddenly make enough when I die? Or are they still gonna be hounding me for more?

Will I have to face God and apologize that I cannot pay the Heaven rent? And get sent elsewhere?

God is supposedly in control of everything. But like Carlin said... He seems to have a lot of trouble with money...

I know fncceo is being facetious, but there's a deeper truth beyond what he intends, too. I enjoy his humor. It's quite good.

Usually, Christian churches ask for 10% of your yearly income as tithing. I have to agree that people are not comfortable with it. They are asked to buy Christian books, too. Some churches are heavier handed than most, but I don't think one has to feel they have to give 10%. I try to do the 10%, but only if I feel comfortable in doing that for the year. Give if you feel comfortable.

What does the Bible say about Christian tithing? Should a Christian tithe?

Are Christians Required to Give 10% of Their Income to the Church? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

There are other worthwhile charities, too, such as Salvation Army.

Yet, your point isn't about giving. It's more atheist criticism of Christians and I think I addressed that above.

Christians believe once a person has committed to Jesus, then they become good trees and good trees bear good fruit. The result is faith + good works as in Book of James. It doesn't mean that good deeds or giving and buying your way into heaven gets one into heaven.

But if God is all-powerful, and Jesus is too, why do they need people to raise money?

They can create it themselves, in whatever means necessary. "Poof! There's some gold bars for you!"

What happens, in the current system, is that corrupt people keep most of the money being raised by well-wishing people, in whatever form they donate to the Church.

Some of it surely goes back to altruistic intentions, to keep people giving. And I understand that a lot of it goes towards maintenance. But most of it disappears into corrupt coffers, or stashed away in some hidden Vatican fund.

My point is, with the vast amount of money and volunteer work that is donated by Christians, that should cover maintenance, and also stop people from starving and suffering in this world.

But then, if they stop the starvation and suffering, it will be hard to generate more money without conquering... It's catch-22.

But an altruistic religion, with almost unlimited funds, and a righteous God that can make money appear from thin air, should stop all world suffering first, and worry about followers later.

That..... would get me to follow a religion.

I guess you missed the part where Adam sinned or else we'd all be living in paradise. It's like I'm talking with a rock.

WHAT?!? You're still blaming everything on Adam? It was Eve... She wanted more fruit than she was entitled to. And she liked the Serpent!

Of course, the serpent was Enki, and Eve didn't exist. And AD.IM means "human" in Sumerian. And the first human was created in the Sumerian city of ED.IN.

Of course this was all written 2000+ years before the OT. But hey... who cares???

 

[james bond]

To settle this argument,

You have to leave your Visa card and all the things you bought behind. Don't you think that life is short and it's strange that one can't take anything with them when they die? That said, there is more to life than that if you believe in Jesus and creation science. God reveals himself and then one starts to understand creation science is greater that evolution and evolutionary thinking. It's true science vs false science.

But your religion wants our money now, while alive. I'm constantly getting asked to donate to a religion that has more money than I can possibly conceive. Why would it be different later?

Did they suddenly make enough when I die? Or are they still gonna be hounding me for more?

Will I have to face God and apologize that I cannot pay the Heaven rent? And get sent elsewhere?

God is supposedly in control of everything. But like Carlin said... He seems to have a lot of trouble with money...

I know fncceo is being facetious, but there's a deeper truth beyond what he intends, too. I enjoy his humor. It's quite good.

Usually, Christian churches ask for 10% of your yearly income as tithing. I have to agree that people are not comfortable with it. They are asked to buy Christian books, too. Some churches are heavier handed than most, but I don't think one has to feel they have to give 10%. I try to do the 10%, but only if I feel comfortable in doing that for the year. Give if you feel comfortable.

What does the Bible say about Christian tithing? Should a Christian tithe?

Are Christians Required to Give 10% of Their Income to the Church? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

There are other worthwhile charities, too, such as Salvation Army.

Yet, your point isn't about giving. It's more atheist criticism of Christians and I think I addressed that above.

Christians believe once a person has committed to Jesus, then they become good trees and good trees bear good fruit. The result is faith + good works as in Book of James. It doesn't mean that good deeds or giving and buying your way into heaven gets one into heaven.

But if God is all-powerful, and Jesus is too, why do they need people to raise money?

They can create it themselves, in whatever means necessary. "Poof! There's some gold bars for you!"

What happens, in the current system, is that corrupt people keep most of the money being raised by well-wishing people, in whatever form they donate to the Church.

Some of it surely goes back to altruistic intentions, to keep people giving. And I understand that a lot of it goes towards maintenance. But most of it disappears into corrupt coffers, or stashed away in some hidden Vatican fund.

My point is, with the vast amount of money and volunteer work that is donated by Christians, that should cover maintenance, and also stop people from starving and suffering in this world.

But then, if they stop the starvation and suffering, it will be hard to generate more money without conquering... It's catch-22.

But an altruistic religion, with almost unlimited funds, and a righteous God that can make money appear from thin air, should stop all world suffering first, and worry about followers later.

That..... would get me to follow a religion.

I guess you missed the part where Adam sinned or else we'd all be living in paradise. It's like I'm talking with a rock.

WHAT?!? You're still blaming everything on Adam? It was Eve... She wanted more fruit than she was entitled to. And she liked the Serpent!

Of course, the serpent was Enki, and Eve didn't exist. And AD.IM means "human" in Sumerian. And the first human was created in the Sumerian city of ED.IN.

Of course this was all written 2000+ years before the OT. But hey... who cares???

Who cares? I have explained this before, but you keep coming back to your Sumerian mythology readings. What an ignoramus you are.

We know that some women still have a thing about serpents today. However, it was Adam who ate the apple that caused the transfer of the world to Satan. He was the beholder. If he stuck to his guns and told Eve that she was wrong, then we would not be in this mess today. What would have happened? It's not known, but probably Eve would be the one banished and Adam would be alone again. Maybe God would give Adam another wife due to cheating.

Next, you jump into your argument of a Sumerian myth to equate to what's written in the history of humans in the bible as Genesis. You dare to compare known fiction with known history. While we do not have the skeletons of Adam and Eve, we do have genetic evidence based on the Genesis theory. The genetic evidence shows it.

"The genetic evidence is consistent with human DNA being “young” and the human race beginning with a very small starting population (the Bible tells us the starting population was two people!).

The International HapMap project endeavors to study a select group of DNA similarities and differences between humans known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).5 The SNPs are believed to be representative of the genome (total human DNA) such that what is true for them would be true for the whole genome. These studies and others have shown that the difference in DNA between any two humans is amazingly low . . . only 0.1 percent.6

Reflecting on this very low percentage, some scientists posited, “This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees, reflecting the recent origins of our species from a small founding population” (emphases mine).7 They also stated, “[Certain genetic estimates] tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.”8

These findings are consistent with the Bible’s history that humans were created several thousands years ago; in other words, a short amount of time has passed, so there is little genetic variation."

Furthermore, today's population is based on the offspring of Noah.

"Evolutionary scientists reject the biblical history of humanity’s origin from just two people. Nevertheless, when a group of evolutionary geneticists in 2009 evaluated various models of human origins, they tacitly acknowledged the plausibility of human descent from the people dispersed from the Tower of Babel. What they called the “instantaneous divergence model” sounds pretty much like what happened at the Tower of Babel sometime after the global Flood. These evolutionists found that “the genetic ‘predictions’ of the instantaneous divergence model are consistent with observed human genetic variation!”10"

Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?

Even atheist scientists back it up in their worldview.

"Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry.

The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.

The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them."

Research confirms theory that all modern humans descended from the same small group of people

The above, whether you believe Tower of Babel dispersion or Out of Africa, shows that you are ignorant of scientific genetic arguments from both sides. Instead, you focus on Sumerican myths. I have explained the science before and yet you keep repeating your same mistakes!

You need to admit the bible is a non-fictional account of human history and actually read and understand what it says. Two, you need to better understand what evolution is stating. Obviously, you have heard of common ancestor and how it started but either forget and cannot apply it when need to in your haste to create fictious arguments.

 

[Hollie]

To settle this argument,
But your religion wants our money now, while alive. I'm constantly getting asked to donate to a religion that has more money than I can possibly conceive. Why would it be different later?

Did they suddenly make enough when I die? Or are they still gonna be hounding me for more?

Will I have to face God and apologize that I cannot pay the Heaven rent? And get sent elsewhere?

God is supposedly in control of everything. But like Carlin said... He seems to have a lot of trouble with money...

I know fncceo is being facetious, but there's a deeper truth beyond what he intends, too. I enjoy his humor. It's quite good.

Usually, Christian churches ask for 10% of your yearly income as tithing. I have to agree that people are not comfortable with it. They are asked to buy Christian books, too. Some churches are heavier handed than most, but I don't think one has to feel they have to give 10%. I try to do the 10%, but only if I feel comfortable in doing that for the year. Give if you feel comfortable.

What does the Bible say about Christian tithing? Should a Christian tithe?

Are Christians Required to Give 10% of Their Income to the Church? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

There are other worthwhile charities, too, such as Salvation Army.

Yet, your point isn't about giving. It's more atheist criticism of Christians and I think I addressed that above.

Christians believe once a person has committed to Jesus, then they become good trees and good trees bear good fruit. The result is faith + good works as in Book of James. It doesn't mean that good deeds or giving and buying your way into heaven gets one into heaven.

But if God is all-powerful, and Jesus is too, why do they need people to raise money?

They can create it themselves, in whatever means necessary. "Poof! There's some gold bars for you!"

What happens, in the current system, is that corrupt people keep most of the money being raised by well-wishing people, in whatever form they donate to the Church.

Some of it surely goes back to altruistic intentions, to keep people giving. And I understand that a lot of it goes towards maintenance. But most of it disappears into corrupt coffers, or stashed away in some hidden Vatican fund.

My point is, with the vast amount of money and volunteer work that is donated by Christians, that should cover maintenance, and also stop people from starving and suffering in this world.

But then, if they stop the starvation and suffering, it will be hard to generate more money without conquering... It's catch-22.

But an altruistic religion, with almost unlimited funds, and a righteous God that can make money appear from thin air, should stop all world suffering first, and worry about followers later.

That..... would get me to follow a religion.

I guess you missed the part where Adam sinned or else we'd all be living in paradise. It's like I'm talking with a rock.

WHAT?!? You're still blaming everything on Adam? It was Eve... She wanted more fruit than she was entitled to. And she liked the Serpent!

Of course, the serpent was Enki, and Eve didn't exist. And AD.IM means "human" in Sumerian. And the first human was created in the Sumerian city of ED.IN.

Of course this was all written 2000+ years before the OT. But hey... who cares???

Who cares? I have explained this before, but you keep coming back to your Sumerian mythology readings. What an ignoramus you are.

We know that some women still have a thing about serpents today. However, it was Adam who ate the apple that caused the transfer of the world to Satan. He was the beholder. If he stuck to his guns and told Eve that she was wrong, then we would not be in this mess today. What would have happened? It's not known, but probably Eve would be the one banished and Adam would be alone again. Maybe God would give Adam another wife due to cheating.

Next, you jump into your argument of a Sumerian myth to equate to what's written in the history of humans in the bible as Genesis. You dare to compare known fiction with known history. While we do not have the skeletons of Adam and Eve, we do have genetic evidence based on the Genesis theory. The genetic evidence shows it.

"The genetic evidence is consistent with human DNA being “young” and the human race beginning with a very small starting population (the Bible tells us the starting population was two people!).

The International HapMap project endeavors to study a select group of DNA similarities and differences between humans known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).5 The SNPs are believed to be representative of the genome (total human DNA) such that what is true for them would be true for the whole genome. These studies and others have shown that the difference in DNA between any two humans is amazingly low . . . only 0.1 percent.6

Reflecting on this very low percentage, some scientists posited, “This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees, reflecting the recent origins of our species from a small founding population” (emphases mine).7 They also stated, “[Certain genetic estimates] tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.”8

These findings are consistent with the Bible’s history that humans were created several thousands years ago; in other words, a short amount of time has passed, so there is little genetic variation."

Furthermore, today's population is based on the offspring of Noah.

"Evolutionary scientists reject the biblical history of humanity’s origin from just two people. Nevertheless, when a group of evolutionary geneticists in 2009 evaluated various models of human origins, they tacitly acknowledged the plausibility of human descent from the people dispersed from the Tower of Babel. What they called the “instantaneous divergence model” sounds pretty much like what happened at the Tower of Babel sometime after the global Flood. These evolutionists found that “the genetic ‘predictions’ of the instantaneous divergence model are consistent with observed human genetic variation!”10"

Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?

Even atheist scientists back it up in their worldview.

"Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry.

The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.

The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them."

Research confirms theory that all modern humans descended from the same small group of people

The above, whether you believe Tower of Babel dispersion or Out of Africa, shows that you are ignorant of scientific genetic arguments from both sides. Instead, you focus on Sumerican myths. I have explained the science before and yet you keep repeating your same mistakes!

You need to admit the bible is a non-fictional account of human history and actually read and understand what it says. Two, you need to better understand what evolution is stating. Obviously, you have heard of common ancestor and how it started but either forget and cannot apply it when need to in your haste to create fictious arguments.

Sorry, but you’re not making any kind of credible case for ID/creationism. Your references to Answers in Genesis and the Charlatans there announces your agenda. Their claims are a nonsense. Their claims are based on misconceptions, poor science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, hearsay-- all driven by a need to protect their dogma. Consider how much they have to lose if they insist on straying from biblical literalism. For the biblical literalist, if evolution is true, then there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. As you can see, they will fight tooth and nail, to the bitter end, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.

ID/Creationism is not science. They are not interested in discovering the truth, because they believe they already have it in a book. Why investigate when you already know? Their purpose is to calm and placate their believers, and influence school boards and legislators into removing evolution from our public school system.

Creationism exclusively concerns itself with the efforts to refute evolution. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evolutionism". It simply is not the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “Come and hear how we've discovered that evolution couldn't have happened!”

The reason why certain "fire and brimstone" type of Christians refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal Adam and Eve to support their notion that all human beings are born totally depraved with Original Sin, and therefore in need of Salvation through Christ-- in fact, that was the whole reason for the crucifixion. If you replace Adam and Eve with Homo Erectus, the idea of the Fall of Man and Original Sin is a little hard to reconcile.

 

[RWS]

I'm going to pop some popcorn and check back here later...

 

[RWS]

For shits and giggles, here's a small part of something interesting...

 

[Darkwind]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.