Zone1 Religion Versus Evolution

[ChristisKing]

First off, theres TONS of proof on evolution, and absolutely NONE on religious fairy tales.

Where did the first chimpanzee come from then?

 

[Kyrion]

First off, theres TONS of proof on evolution, and absolutely NONE on religious fairy tales.

Second, an HONEST scientist will tell you that how old they think everything is, is just THEORY and GUESSWORK.
They have no clue how old this planet is, as they have changed their minds every year since science became a "thing".

The fake scientists can tell you how old everything is until they spontaniously combust.........it does not make them right or correct. If any scientist tells you the have a "definitive answer", they are liars, cheats, frauds, and scam artists.

You are falling for the bad faith bait. He knows that he is wrong, as he is just pretending otherwise to upset you.

Very obvious and very old trolling trick by conservatives.

 

[Leo123]

First off, theres TONS of proof on evolution, and absolutely NONE on religious fairy tales.

Second, an HONEST scientist will tell you that how old they think everything is, is just THEORY and GUESSWORK.
They have no clue how old this planet is, as they have changed their minds every year since science became a "thing".

The fake scientists can tell you how old everything is until they spontaniously combust.........it does not make them right or correct. If any scientist tells you the have a "definitive answer", they are liars, cheats, frauds, and scam artists.

Can we make a living cell?

 

[Kyrion]

Why don't you do real actual science yourself then?

Try again. Why do you prefer the lazy authoritarian argument instead of doing actual real science?

 

[Kyrion]

I'm a woman although I realize that you probably don't know what that is.

Nobody cares.

 

[ChristisKing]

You are falling for the bad faith bait. He knows that he is wrong, as he is just pretending otherwise to upset you.

Very obvious and very old trolling trick by conservatives.

Again, do the real actual science yourself then and prove me wrong.

Try again. Why do you prefer the lazy authoritarian argument instead of doing actual real science?

Looks like you got nothing then.

 

[Kyrion]

Again, do the real actual science yourself then and prove me wrong.





Looks like you got nothing then.

See? Bad faith and nothing else. Too easy to spot.

Try again. Why do you prefer the lazy authoritarian argument instead of doing real science?

 

[Leo123]

Nobody cares.

You don't care what a woman is?

 

[Kyrion]

You don't care what a woman is?

Nobody cares that you are a woman, and how you thought otherwise, is indeed very funny.

 

[ChristisKing]

You don't care what a woman is?

He should because he came from one.

 

[shockedcanadian]

This was a conversation that I was having earlier today. I have faith in Jesus Christ because it's a whole lot easier to have faith in Him than chimpanzees turning into human beings. After all, if that was the case don't you think that would still be happening? Here's another good argument that the Bible is the truth. I didn't use to be a young earther until I saw this video.







Third argument, it has been scientifically proven that Jesus Christ was born, lived, and died. So if He didn't rise from the dead then where are His remains? I actually heard that one from a Charlie Kirk video I just can't remember which one.

Well there are countless men from 2000 years ago whose bones locations are not known.

 

[ChristisKing]

Well there are countless men from 2000 years ago whose bones locations are not known.

No, but Christ's tomb is known so why wasn't His remains ever discovered?

 

[Cougarbear]

You fail science.

You fail science because you can't dispute the claims in the video. You just type three words and think you are intelligent. No, you failed.

 

[Cougarbear]

A book?



Muslims have a book too, as do Sufis and Hindu's and...

We have a book. What do you have? Now, did it take only 6,000 years to create the earth and universe? I don't agree with this. So, I would go along with 6 time periods, not literal 24 hour days. There are reasons for my questioning this. But, when it gets to the 6th day, yes, man and the land animals, including dinosaurs, were created or organized together. Just look at ancient Egyptian art and even art in the Americas. There are drawings of man and dinosaurs existing together. Even artifacts with people riding a stegisauraus . So, If you see this, why do you reject the idea that there is something wrong with the way geology is explained including carbon dating?

 

[Leo123]

Nobody cares that you are a woman, and how you thought otherwise, is indeed very funny.

I'm male, which proves you don't know what a woman is.

 

[Kyrion]

I'm male, which proves you don't know what a woman is.

Nobody cares about that either.

 

[Cougarbear]

Science advances:

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution​

Along path leads from the origins of primitive "life," which existed at least 3.5 billion years ago, to the profusion and diversity of life that exists today. This path is best understood as a product of evolution.

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf

Thank you for your producing information, not evidence. It was written with careful word constructions to eliminate as many fuzzy words as possible like "maybe" "could be" and so on. But, the concept of those fuzzy words is instilled throughout the entire writing. The idea that reptile bones came together and formed one mandible bone proving mammals came from reptiles is a real stretch and not proven. And, there is no way to prove it. It's just an assumption like Genesis. At least the creationists provide scientific information to prove their theories.

Then, there's the separation theory that suggests new species are created. In the movie, "Fools Rush In" Isabel explains that on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon are squirrels that have mutated. On one side, they are cute and on the other side, not cute. But, they are still squirrels whether they can still mate or not. The finches in the article are the same. They are still finches whether they can mate or not. These are still assumptions that there was a squirrel or finch that all the variances derived from. The missing link. There is no missing link for chimps and humans. It's only a theory that there is. Nothing proved. Just a case of belief. Just like a belief in God.

With that said that you provided nothing but more fuzzy words and ideas, what is in their actually provides more proof of the creationist's conclusions. The idea that the animals of the sea were created before the land animals is true and Genesis says the same. Even the grass and trees were formed before the land animals and man. So, there is common ground with the evolutionist and the creationist. If you read up on creationism before just dismissing it because you don't believe in Jehovah or Jesus Christ or the Father, you may learn some challenges evolution has. He's correct on the age dating methods of evolution. Too many assumptions that for 3.5 billion years everything was a constant when it comes to factors of things like half-life's of atoms and isotopes and carbon and all of that. Science has proven that there are in fact things that get in the way of the constant aging and being able to date things accurately. And, when it comes to all the land formations like in Utah and Arizona, it doesn't take millions of years to form those. In fact, more and more scientists are now agreeing that the millions of years actually go against the formation of things like the Grand Canyon. There is evidence that some things found don't belong in some of the layers based on evolution.

So, who are the close-minded people, evolutionists or creationists? Creationists keep showing evidence for young earth. Evolutionists have nothing to show how evolution took millions of years to come up with humans. Creationists actually use the science the evolutionists come up with. Creationists are the open-minded people, not evolutionists. Now, you will have some unclever comeback of name calling and emotional outbursts. Typical of evolutionists who don't believe in Jesus Christ.

 

[ding]

This was a conversation that I was having earlier today. I have faith in Jesus Christ because it's a whole lot easier to have faith in Him than chimpanzees turning into human beings. After all, if that was the case don't you think that would still be happening? Here's another good argument that the Bible is the truth. I didn't use to be a young earther until I saw this video.







Third argument, it has been scientifically proven that Jesus Christ was born, lived, and died. So if He didn't rise from the dead then where are His remains? I actually heard that one from a Charlie Kirk video I just can't remember which one.

There is nothing inconsistent with evolution and the creation account. It’s not an either or proposition.

 

[ChristisKing]

There is nothing inconsistent with evolution and the creation account. It’s not an either or proposition.

Again, where did the first chimpanzee come from?

 

[ding]

Thank you for your producing information, not evidence. It was written with careful word constructions to eliminate as many fuzzy words as possible like "maybe" "could be" and so on. But, the concept of those fuzzy words is instilled throughout the entire writing. The idea that reptile bones came together and formed one mandible bone proving mammals came from reptiles is a real stretch and not proven. And, there is no way to prove it. It's just an assumption like Genesis. At least the creationists provide scientific information to prove their theories.

Then, there's the separation theory that suggests new species are created. In the movie, "Fools Rush In" Isabel explains that on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon are squirrels that have mutated. On one side, they are cute and on the other side, not cute. But, they are still squirrels whether they can still mate or not. The finches in the article are the same. They are still finches whether they can mate or not. These are still assumptions that there was a squirrel or finch that all the variances derived from. The missing link. There is no missing link for chimps and humans. It's only a theory that there is. Nothing proved. Just a case of belief. Just like a belief in God.

With that said that you provided nothing but more fuzzy words and ideas, what is in their actually provides more proof of the creationist's conclusions. The idea that the animals of the sea were created before the land animals is true and Genesis says the same. Even the grass and trees were formed before the land animals and man. So, there is common ground with the evolutionist and the creationist. If you read up on creationism before just dismissing it because you don't believe in Jehovah or Jesus Christ or the Father, you may learn some challenges evolution has. He's correct on the age dating methods of evolution. Too many assumptions that for 3.5 billion years everything was a constant when it comes to factors of things like half-life's of atoms and isotopes and carbon and all of that. Science has proven that there are in fact things that get in the way of the constant aging and being able to date things accurately. And, when it comes to all the land formations like in Utah and Arizona, it doesn't take millions of years to form those. In fact, more and more scientists are now agreeing that the millions of years actually go against the formation of things like the Grand Canyon. There is evidence that some things found don't belong in some of the layers based on evolution.

So, who are the close-minded people, evolutionists or creationists? Creationists keep showing evidence for young earth. Evolutionists have nothing to show how evolution took millions of years to come up with humans. Creationists actually use the science the evolutionists come up with. Creationists are the open-minded people, not evolutionists. Now, you will have some unclever comeback of name calling and emotional outbursts. Typical of evolutionists who don't believe in Jesus Christ.

How old do you believe the earth is and why?