Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[THE LIGHT]

This thread is about as close as we will ever get to a Time Machine. I come here occasionally to get a feel for contemporary thinking as it was in the year 900 AD. it is actually pretty entertaining.

I agree. Evolutionism takes us back to the middle ages.

 

[THE LIGHT]

No, I never said that. I agree with what the scientists say, because they're right. You believe that the world was created by an invisible superbeing in another dimension who made humans with so many flaws that it will punish you if you don't follow a book. Sounds pretty absurd when I lay it all out, doesn't it?

And those "scientists" say the earth popped into existence when nothing exploded and that life rode into earth on the backs of meteor. Sounds pretty absurd when you have to hear what you actually believe rather than just saying "I agree with what the scientists say, because they're right".

First of all, you cannot say they are "right" because you don't believe in absolutes. Second of all, I can say you are "wrong" and I am right because I DO believe in absolutes.

I believe the world was created by a Creator Yashua who made the earth good on day one and it remained so, but Adam and Eve took and ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (the tree of "the law") because they wanted to become gods (just as every atheist does today). Through Adam's sin, death and sickness entered into the world and we now live in a fallen world. Fortunately there is hope for those who accept Christ as their personal savior.

 

[guno]

No, I never said that. I agree with what the scientists say, because they're right. You believe that the world was created by an invisible superbeing in another dimension who made humans with so many flaws that it will punish you if you don't follow a book. Sounds pretty absurd when I lay it all out, doesn't it?

And those "scientists" say the earth popped into existence when nothing exploded and that life rode into earth on the backs of meteor. Sounds pretty absurd when you have to hear what you actually believe rather than just saying "I agree with what the scientists say, because they're right".

First of all, you cannot say they are "right" because you don't believe in absolutes. Second of all, I can say you are "wrong" and I am right because I DO believe in absolutes.

I believe the world was created by a Creator Yashua who made the earth good on day one and it remained so, but Adam and Eve took and ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (the tree of "the law") because they wanted to become gods (just as every atheist does today). Through Adam's sin, death and sickness entered into the world and we now live in a fallen world. Fortunately there is hope for those who accept Christ as their personal savior.

Quoting from a primitive book of superstition only makes you look like an uneducated dolt when it comes to any discussion on Science

 

[guno]

No, I never said that. I agree with what the scientists say, because they're right. You believe that the world was created by an invisible superbeing in another dimension who made humans with so many flaws that it will punish you if you don't follow a book. Sounds pretty absurd when I lay it all out, doesn't it?

And those "scientists" say the earth popped into existence when nothing exploded and that life rode into earth on the backs of meteor. Sounds pretty absurd when you have to hear what you actually believe rather than just saying "I agree with what the scientists say, because they're right".

First of all, you cannot say they are "right" because you don't believe in absolutes. Second of all, I can say you are "wrong" and I am right because I DO believe in absolutes.

I believe the world was created by a Creator Yashua who made the earth good on day one and it remained so, but Adam and Eve took and ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (the tree of "the law") because they wanted to become gods (just as every atheist does today). Through Adam's sin, death and sickness entered into the world and we now live in a fallen world. Fortunately there is hope for those who accept Christ as their personal savior.

>I believe the world was created by a Creator Yashua<

Is that why we Jews know your yeshu was a mamzer (bastard) a product of the hairdresser and whore mary, and a roman soldier , that's who created your world?

 

[Hollie]

Oh?.

yes, spectrum analysis of stars......the Hubble telescope......analysis of asteroids.....

Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.

not at all.....I am perfectly willing to let you show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism outside the laboratory.......

It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.

so your defense of your claims is that while they may be wrong now you have faith it will be proven true later....

In spite of your objections, multi cellular organisms did in fact evolve.

I'm perfectly willing to see your evidence of your gawds magically *poofing* all of existence a mere 6,000 years ago.

silly, Hollie.....not only can you not produce evidence its a fact, you can't remember from one page to the next that I'm not a young earther.....no wonder your posts carry no weight.....

Well, actually, it's a fact that multi cell organisms do exist and do evolve. You can produce no evidence that any of your gawds snapped their magical digits and *poofed* those entities into existence.

Celebrate your YEC proclivities.

 

[PratchettFan]

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists or move the goalposts.

I haven't moved any goal posts.....I'm still asking for the same thing I have been since January.....proof that a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism.......and there's a good reason to deny it exists......the reason is, it doesn't exist......if it did, one of you fools would have produced it since January.....instead I just get the same failed arguments, over and over and over.....

no....I do not believe science is crap......I simply believe your arguments are crap....

Says the guy who believes humans just popped into existence like in a cartoon. Hey, maybe your god is Walt Disney!

PostMod is just trying to discredit science because he thinks that somehow transfers credibility to his myths, as if there's some sort of zero sum game at work here.

I'm not discrediting science at all.....I'm discrediting your arguments.....did you think your arguments were science?.....

Oh?.

yes, spectrum analysis of stars......the Hubble telescope......analysis of asteroids.....

Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.

not at all.....I am perfectly willing to let you show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism outside the laboratory.......

It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.

so your defense of your claims is that while they may be wrong now you have faith it will be proven true later....

Oh?.

yes, spectrum analysis of stars......the Hubble telescope......analysis of asteroids.....

Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.

not at all.....I am perfectly willing to let you show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism outside the laboratory.......

It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.

so your defense of your claims is that while they may be wrong now you have faith it will be proven true later....

Scientists move on when they're wrong and someone shows them why, that's sometimes how science advances. No faith involved. Please try again.

now that I have shown you why you are wrong, will you move on?....

It's apparent that you don't care about the legitimacy of your arguments, but anyway,

you stuck on a very false premise that science has to be able to reproduce everything in a lab experiment in order for it to be considered a scientific fact or theory.

actually, my premise is that the evolution of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism has never been reproduced, observed, tested or validated.....and until SOMETHING is demonstrated, its not science at all......

That is nonsense.

do you then have something you can link which will show that the evolution of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism has ever been reproduced, observed, tested or validated?.......

Nope. But what is nonsense is your statement that until something is demonstrated it is not science.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Nope. But what is nonsense is your statement that until something is demonstrated it is not science.

now I understand your error.....
science is a process of observing, testing, categorizing and understanding the world around us......"something" may exist in the world around us as truth and fact, but if its never been observed, tested, categorized and understood, it is not science.....

this is why is is said that a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable....
Hypotheses

 

[BillyP]

This thread is about as close as we will ever get to a Time Machine. I come here occasionally to get a feel for contemporary thinking as it was in the year 900 AD. it is actually pretty entertaining.

I agree. Evolutionism takes us back to the middle ages.

To when the church thought the world was flat?

 

[Rotagilla]

Penguins are birds. They don't fly anymore. They evolved.
There are fish that can cross dry land to get to other water. They evolved.
..or am I wrong?

 

[THE LIGHT]

To when the church thought the world was flat?

Once again, that is a myth that only uneducated atheists pass around without checking the facts.

"there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference"

source: Wikipedia (why wiki??? because wiki is sooo anti-christian and yet EVEN THEY recognize the stupidity of what you just said.)

 

[THE LIGHT]

Quoting from a primitive book of superstition only makes you look like an uneducated dolt when it comes to any discussion on Science

I don't like primitive books. A book is primitive if it is based merely on man's knowledge. Unlike "science" textbooks, the Bible was dictated by God and is therefore accurate throughout time. That's why I like to stick with the Bible. There's no expiration date on it.

 

[konradv]

I understand where you're coming from..., partially. While religious beliefs do come from faith, if you want to tell us our "scientific" assumptions are wrong, you're going to have to do it in a scientific manner.

I am.....I am pointing out that your beliefs have not met the requirements of the scientific method.....

That's ludicrous. You've been belittling the methods used, twisting how they were used or claiming they weren't used at all. The only thing you haven't done is to actually point out how evolutionists' beliefs are wrong. That would require YOU using the scientific method properly, which has not been in evidence the entire thread.

 

[konradv]

Quoting from a primitive book of superstition only makes you look like an uneducated dolt when it comes to any discussion on Science

I don't like primitive books. A book is primitive if it is based merely on man's knowledge. Unlike "science" textbooks, the Bible was dictated by God and is therefore accurate throughout time. That's why I like to stick with the Bible. There's no expiration date on it.

Who ever claimed the Bible was dictated? I think you have it confused with the Koran(The Recitation). The Bible was written by men, inspired by God.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I understand where you're coming from..., partially. While religious beliefs do come from faith, if you want to tell us our "scientific" assumptions are wrong, you're going to have to do it in a scientific manner.

I am.....I am pointing out that your beliefs have not met the requirements of the scientific method.....

That's ludicrous. You've been belittling the methods used, twisting how they were used or claiming they weren't used at all. The only thing you haven't done is to actually point out how evolutionists' beliefs are wrong. That would require YOU using the scientific method properly, which has not been in evidence the entire thread.

seriously?......my argument from the very beginning has been that the evolutionists are wrong for not remaining true to the scientific method.....thus I have been demonstrating why the methods used were not the methods of science and pointing out where they haven't been used at all......that IS me using the scientific method properly.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Quoting from a primitive book of superstition only makes you look like an uneducated dolt when it comes to any discussion on Science

I don't like primitive books. A book is primitive if it is based merely on man's knowledge. Unlike "science" textbooks, the Bible was dictated by God and is therefore accurate throughout time. That's why I like to stick with the Bible. There's no expiration date on it.

See? This is what you're up against when you try to reason with the 'faithful'.

...why is that true?...because it's in the Bible...why does being in the Bible make it true?...because it's the Bible...

That, for better or for worse, is the irrationality of religion.

 

[BillyP]

I understand where you're coming from..., partially. While religious beliefs do come from faith, if you want to tell us our "scientific" assumptions are wrong, you're going to have to do it in a scientific manner.

I am.....I am pointing out that your beliefs have not met the requirements of the scientific method.....

That's ludicrous. You've been belittling the methods used, twisting how they were used or claiming they weren't used at all. The only thing you haven't done is to actually point out how evolutionists' beliefs are wrong. That would require YOU using the scientific method properly, which has not been in evidence the entire thread.

seriously?......my argument from the very beginning has been that the evolutionists are wrong for not remaining true to the scientific method.....thus I have been demonstrating why the methods used were not the methods of science and pointing out where they haven't been used at all......that IS me using the scientific method properly.....

Then you clearly need to read up on scientific methods. And anyways, how can someone who thinks an invisible being poofed everything into existence argue about scientific methods as relating to where we come from?

 

[NYcarbineer]

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists or move the goalposts.

I haven't moved any goal posts.....I'm still asking for the same thing I have been since January.....proof that a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism.......and there's a good reason to deny it exists......the reason is, it doesn't exist......if it did, one of you fools would have produced it since January.....instead I just get the same failed arguments, over and over and over.....

You are establishing a false premise to argue from, which is that unless scientists can reproduce some event in a laboratory, it cannot be considered a valid theory.

We can't recreate the 5 billion year history of the Earth in a lab. That does not in any way reduce science's estimate of the age of the Earth to simply a guess equal in merit to the Bible's 6000 year age of Earth estimate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists or move the goalposts.

I haven't moved any goal posts.....I'm still asking for the same thing I have been since January.....proof that a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism.......and there's a good reason to deny it exists......the reason is, it doesn't exist......if it did, one of you fools would have produced it since January.....instead I just get the same failed arguments, over and over and over.....

Why are you demanding absolute proof beyond all reasonable doubt of a scientific theory? That's why it's called a theory.

 

[Hollie]

This thread is about as close as we will ever get to a Time Machine. I come here occasionally to get a feel for contemporary thinking as it was in the year 900 AD. it is actually pretty entertaining.

I agree. Evolutionism takes us back to the middle ages.

/QUOTE]
You and the science illiterate should be made aware that "evolutionism" incorporates the science disciplines of biology, chemistry, paleontology, earth history, etc.

It was science and waning influence of the church in Europe that led the continent out of the church enabled Dark Ages.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I understand where you're coming from..., partially. While religious beliefs do come from faith, if you want to tell us our "scientific" assumptions are wrong, you're going to have to do it in a scientific manner.

I am.....I am pointing out that your beliefs have not met the requirements of the scientific method.....

That's ludicrous. You've been belittling the methods used, twisting how they were used or claiming they weren't used at all. The only thing you haven't done is to actually point out how evolutionists' beliefs are wrong. That would require YOU using the scientific method properly, which has not been in evidence the entire thread.

seriously?......my argument from the very beginning has been that the evolutionists are wrong for not remaining true to the scientific method.....thus I have been demonstrating why the methods used were not the methods of science and pointing out where they haven't been used at all......that IS me using the scientific method properly.....

Then you clearly need to read up on scientific methods. And anyways, how can someone who thinks an invisible being poofed everything into existence argue about scientific methods as relating to where we come from?

I am quite familiar with it....in fact, I can quote from memory the section that your argument fails.....testing.....