For you fans of Charles Darwin, check this video out

Prove that since you allege it was proven
Haha, no, I'm here for discussion, not to feed the sealions.

You don't have to take my word for it. You can visit any biology class from 9th grade on up. Or read any biology text.

There's a lot. Physiological, genetic, geological, you even get into quantum physics, with the dating.

Mountains and mountains of mutually supportive evidence, from nearly every field.of science.

But again, I urge you not to just take my word for it.
 
Haha, no, I'm here for discussion, not to feed the sealions.

You don't have to take my word for it. You can visit any biology class from 9th grade on up. Or read any biology text.

There's a lot. Physiological, genetic, geological, you even get into quantum physics, with the dating.

Mountains and mountains of mutually supportive evidence, from nearly every field.of science.

But again, I urge you not to just take my word for it.
Your word is not reliable. You prove it when discussing us politics.
1764470861752.webp
 
Your word is not reliable.
And I urged you, more than once, not to take my word for anything.

But instead to read up for yourself, like an honest, curious adult would do.

But you are neither of those things, when it comes to the science that contradicts your personal, pet "literal" reading of the Bible.

Your loss, really.
 
Again you are wrong


You’re battin a thousand today champ
Read the article again. Could does not mean definitely. The article says may have. Again, not certainty. What more do you have?
 
Read the article again. Could does not mean definitely. The article says may have. Again, not certainty. What more do you have?
What more are you demanding?

Tell us some evidence that would convince you that God's plan was abiogenesis and evolution. Just, ya know, spitball it.
 
And I urged you, more than once, not to take my word for anything.

But instead to read up for yourself, like an honest, curious adult would do.

But you are neither of those things, when it comes to the science that contradicts your personal, pet "literal" reading of the Bible.

Your loss, really.
None of my remarks has a thing to do with the Bible. I have many books I have studied about evolution. It is simply change, not creation.

I also have books about abiogenesis. So far cyanobacteria is named as first life.
 
None of my remarks has a thing to do with the Bible. I have many books I have studied about evolution. It is simply change, not creation.

I also have books about abiogenesis. So far cyanobacteria is named as first life.
All of it is creation, if you look at it as creation. Why not do that?

Surely a creator god is capable of both abiogenesis and evolution, no? Isn't that... kind of the point?
 
All of it is creation, if you look at it as creation. Why not do that?

Surely a creator god is capable of both abiogenesis and evolution, no? Isn't that... kind of the point?
Exactly
 
All of it is creation, if you look at it as creation. Why not do that?

Surely a creator god is capable of both abiogenesis and evolution, no? Isn't that... kind of the point?
So, in truth you really believe in GOD. So does Lesh since he agrees with you.
 
Which is fine.

What I don’t comprehend is the level of effort expended to convince other people in your particular brand of supernatural.
Maybe to help keep the world from going completely to hell.
 
Which is fine.

What I don’t comprehend is the level of effort expended to convince other people in your particular brand of supernatural.
I had to take you off of IGNORE To read this, which is fine but just for the moment.

Eighty-five percent of Nobel Laureates in the Twentieth Century were Christians and Jews, not atheist materialists, like you. The level of effort your group "expends to convince other people in your brand" of materialist nihilism equals or exceeds any other group's. Darwin's nonsense, posing as science, has resulted in more people worldwide rejecting our Creator than any other single factor. It is a monumental catastrophe based on unscientific extrapolation. But you persist in it.

 
So, in truth you really believe in GOD.
That isn't what I said or implied. Please grow up. You started the topic, and now you are too immature for it? Figures.

What is said was you don't have to abandon your belief in the childish God character to accept abiogenesis and evolution. And I explained how and why.
 
That isn't what I said or implied. Please grow up. You started the topic, and now you are too immature for it? Figures.

What is said was you don't have to abandon your belief in the childish God character to accept abiogenesis and evolution. And I explained how and why.
You will find millions of adults that believe in GOD. Abiogenesis is really not understood by the fans of Darwin.
 
You will find millions of adults that believe in GOD. Abiogenesis is really not understood by the fans of Darwin.
Okay.

Now, let's reeeeeel it back in. Stay with me...


All of it is creation, if you look at it as creation. Why not do that?

Surely a creator god is capable of both abiogenesis and evolution, no? Isn't that... kind of the point?
 
15th post
Darwinists ignore the scores of quotations I presented in my website, where they categorically state that Darwinism is pure fraud and nonsense. "It should not be taught in schools." The pretense that random chemical reactions synthesized the 20,000+ different proteins in just the human body has zero scientific basis, as I explain in the website.

Titin is the largest protein in the human body. It consists of 38,138 amino acid residues in a precise sequence. The probability of naturalistic synthesis of titin is 1/20 (amino acids) to the 38,138th power times 1/2 to the 38,138th power for peptide bonds, of equal probability with non-peptide bonds, times another 1/2 to the 38,138th power for levorotary amino acids as opposed to dextrorotary amino acids. This works out to 1 chance in 10 to the 72,528th power. A famous statistician defined "impossible" as 1 chance in10 to the 50 or less.
Ten to the 50 marbles would fill billions of spheres the size of earth. Picking the one unique marble from one of those 54,700 billion spheres full of marbles on your first and only try is absurdly beyond impossible. In any case, you would still have 20,000 more proteins to explain away.
 
The oldest and biggest error in all of science is Darwinian evolution, insistently claimed as "fact, fact, fact." "Proven."
Repeating the same error loudly, insistently, authoritatively, does not make it so. The most compelling scientific evidence against Neo-Darwinism (and there is surely a very great deal) is the Insuperable Statistics of Original Polypeptide Synthesis.


These biologists and scientists had this to say, for you to repeat, with sincerity:

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection…. I find this view antecedently unbelievable – heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense. The empirical evidence can be interpreted to accommodate different comprehensive theories but in this case the cost in conceptual and probabilistic contortions is prohibitive.” – Atheist professor Thomas Nagel

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

“The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)
 
The odds of a completely unrelated set of molecules arranging in ONE particular way, even over a Billion years or more are quite high -- statistically impossible.

But, that is not how evolution is purported to work. Evolution is in fact an incremental process where previous mutations accumulate and propagate where they provide an evolutionary advantage.

We know mutations happen with every generation of organism - we see it happen in real time.

Most of these mutations will be benign, some harmful, but others provide an evolutionary advantage from the previous genome. This is a totally random process but it will build upon the trillions of other mutations that still survive within the genome, making the creation of more complex organisms not only likely but inevitable.


It would be inconceivable for a civilization with no technology to build a 101 story skyscraper with stone knives and bearskins.

But for a civilization who had already built a 100 story skyscraper, the incremental improvement isn't even noteworthy.
 
Not surprised at all. No one has made life. I guess I was addressing the subject of the thread.

Right ... what did the video offer as a replacement theory? ... it doesn't take an hour and a half to point out what we don't know ... what theory explains what we see here on Earth better than ToE? ...

Frankenfoods are a direct result of ToE ... are you just simply eating it claiming it doesn't exist ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... some of my Christian fellows seem to enjoy warmongering more than praising God or making peace with our fellow friends and neighbors ... God created the upright Man, not this pestilence groveling in the mud ... arguing over ...

... blue-green algae ...

[sigh] ...

Christ Jesus came to Earth to feed the hungry, house the homeless and clothe the naked ... maybe it's the Bible y'all should be reading instead ... seems basic biology is over your head ...
 
Back
Top Bottom