There Is Evidence For God

[Astrostar]

Unbeknownst to themselves, dummies decry traditional religion while bowing their head to their own religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic

There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.



1.We don’t often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldn’t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. You’d see ‘em walkin’ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, we’d miss out on a lot of humor, and also, the inspiration to dash off responses, sometimes impolite ones.

Sometimes those dummies open the door to the discussion.


2. The other day, one of the dumbest was irate that I posted criticism of a saint in his religion, Darwinism, and he wrote this:

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!”
Real Science…Not Darwin

BIG LETTERS!!! He sure was mad. But, he did cause me to consider if there is any evidence for the existence of God.



3. And he represents many of those who, no doubt, vote Democrat, and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, you know, the ‘tolerant’ folks. And they get really nasty if you don’t bow down to their god.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
Scientists should be humble, not arrogant



4. Funny thing is, lots of actual scientists write critical papers disputing Darwinism, and many are religious folks, as well.
"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
…the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.

[As for Darwin himself, the] concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??


5. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And that’s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in God….

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.

I'm curious. In all your hot air trumping religion over Darwin, where is your evidence, or, if you will, actual proof that "god" exists or has existed? We're talking courtroom valid, admissible evidence, actual, documented VISIBLE proof, not merely "there's no other valid explanation" "proof." I've asked this question of many religious die hards. I have yet to receive a valid answer!

 

[JimBowie1958]

" No, there is plenty of evidence for evolution, especially in virology and infectious diseases, ..."
What is it?

The way in which bacteria and viruses adapt to anti-biotics for example.

That is Evolution in action.

Another factoid you might consider, most people who beieve in Evolution are also people who believe in a Creator.

The Catholic church of Rome and Eastern Catholics, and most main stream protestants do not deny Evolution as a matter of doctrine or dogma, and also believe in God.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I've stated quite eloquently what I am proving.
a. Science now accepts that there was a beginning to the universe....as the Bible states
b. Science now concedes the order of events in Genesis.
c. There is no proof of the century and a half old Darwinian theory.

a. You are correct. Also the mathematics of non-zero time sequential events demonstrates that there must be a beginning of the flow of time, aka the Infinite Regression Fallacy.
Just as you cannot 'count' to infinity, you can also not count down from infinity either.

b-1. The use of the phrase 'science now concedes' is kind ambiguous. The consensus in science is a virtual bubbling stew pot of theories that change annually. At best you can say what the snap shot is at any given time.

b-2. There is also a lot of disagreement about what the 'order of events' in Genesis actually is. It mentions in verse 1:1 that the heavens and the Earth already existed, before going into the sequential day version of events. No one knows what that time interval is since the language and form of the text is not meant to be taken literally but figuratively. The point is a series of moral truths wrapped in cultural myth that Moses through the inspiration of the holy Spirit wanted to include in the narrative. What exactly those moral truths are is a m atter of belief and faith more than simply observable factoids.

c. No, there is plenty of evidence for evolution, especially in virology and infectious diseases, but that does not conflict with the simple unfilte3red message of the Bible which was not written to address modern scientific theories. Also, the theory of Evolution does not include abiogenesis. That is a different unproven theory.

"b-2. There is also a lot of disagreement about what the 'order of events' in Genesis actually is. It mentions in verse 1:1 that the heavens and the Earth already existed, before going into the sequential day version of events."

1.11 God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation: seed-bearing plants, fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so.

1.12 The earth brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.”

’How can we have plants when the sun doesn’t appear until the next day?’ There were the sun, moon, and stars—but they were not visible from the earth’s surface. The earth was still hot at this time and therefore high vapor pressure enveloped it in thick clouds.

The Earth's atmosphere at this time was also much heavier. Its mass was similar to that of today's oceans, and it pushed down on Earth's surface with a pressure of hundreds of bars. (For comparison, the average pressure at the Earth's surface today is 1 bar). It was also opaque — "you would not have been able to see much, just clouds covering everything," [Dave Stevenson, a Caltech professor of planetary science said].” Giant Moon-Forming Impact On Early Earth May Have Spawned Magma Ocean



“I have personally measured photosynthesis, the growth of plants and the pro- duction of oxygen from that photosynthesis on days when the overcast was so heavy no sun or even hints of a sun could be seen through the clouds, but there was plenty of light and the plants were doing fine with their photosynthesis. By the time of Day Four, the earth had cooled; the clouds were opened and the sun, moon, and stars could be visible from the earth.

At first, clouds make it impossible to see if there is a sun, but….photosynthesis can occur.

“As a result, the atmosphere cleared and the sun, moon, and stars became visible. Prior to this period, although the sun’s light could reach the earth, the actual body of the sun was not visible from the earth due to the heavy cloud cover. I personally have measured the photosynthetic production of oxygen on days that were so heavily overcast that although there was light penetrating the cluds, there was no indication of the glow of the sun behind the clouds.” The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives



Sooo…..where’s the problem???

No problem at all, I agree with that.

I think Genesis is the record of oral history of the Toba catastrophe which caused a volcanic winter that lasted for years. The 'Creation' story is actually, IMOP, a record of the oral history of life returning to the Earth and the joy of the human beings that survived it.

Also, some plants can grow in ambient light and do not need direct sunlight.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't know of any religious folks who don't accept that the earth is some three billion years old.

I know at least one. But he's kind of a nutjob. We used to be best friends. Then he claimed that I think I'm the antichrist and attacked me. He attempted to stab me with some strange wavy bladed ceremonial dagger that he got from Indonesia that he thought had some special powers.

It looked like this...

...only the handle was not so intricate. The handle was a carved piece of wood. But it had a wavy blade just like that. Scary!

that is a kris knife and some of those knives are made by a process that causes them to be naturally poisonous.

From Wikipedia:

In former times, kris blades were said to be infused with poison during their forging, ensuring that any injury was fatal. The poison used to polish kris blade is called warangan.[26] The process of chemical coating was done by warangan or jamas (washing) the blade with acid and minerals that contains arsenic compounds.[27] The process of doing so was kept secret among smiths. Different types of whetstones, acidic juice of citrus fruits and poisonous arsenic bring out the contrast between the dark black iron and the light colored silvery nickel layers which together form pamor, damascene patterns on the blade. ​

 

[JimBowie1958]

My five personal reasons, as such, that cause me to believe in a Creator.


1) Without the reality of the Mind of the Creator, our universe is nothing more than Chaos, but instead we see design, law and beauty in every scale, element and reflection of Nature and our universe.

2) In general, the vast majority of Believers are successful through their lives and those given to atheism appear to be mostly failures, consumed with self destructive behavior and justifying it to themselves and others in their lives by denying the foundations of moral restrictions.

3) I have directly experienced the Presence of the Creator and I will never doubt His existence ever again in my life.

4) The Infinite Regression Fallacy requires an Eternal Creator that can reach into the flow of time. The Trinity is the only concept of such a Creator I am familiar with.

5) Seeing the transcendent peace of those with deep faith in my life convinces me beyond the ability of arguments to do so.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Additional arguments from observation and meditation for why a Creator Exists.

These are not air-tight unassailable arguments, or syllogisms, etc. These are simply some observations that I have had over the years that have strengthened my belief in the reality of a Creator.

1. The Infinite Regression Fallacy. It is widely understood that one cannot count from 1 to infinity because there is no final number that terminates the count. The Infinite Regression Fallacy is an expression that the opposite, counting down from infinity to any finite number, is also impossible because there is no initial point from which one begins. And so we cannot be here due to an infinite chain of segments of time that are of finite, non-Zero, duration. So there must be a starting point to the flow of time. That Initiator of time and space is the Creator, whatever the nature of it, it must be eternal and outside the flow of time.

2. Physics shows us that the greater the mass of an entity, the slower the flow of time is for it, similar to the increase in mass of an object approaching the speed of light. Anything entirely outside the flow of time must be infinite in mass, and therefore energy as well since they are merely different forms of the same thing.

3. In mathematics the Transfinite Number system, created and proven to be valid by Cantor, gives us a model for a 'largest infinite set' which Cantor called the Continuum. This is the set of all possible sets, and Cantor believed it proved the existence of the Creator. I am using it merely to present a rational model for an infinite eternal entity, in this particular argument. This shows the concept of an infinite Creator to be rational and not 'magic'.

4. In Cantors sets of numbers, while the numbers themselves can be null or empty, there is no negative count of elements in the sets. All sets are of a positive count or empty, no negatives exist within it. So to apply this model to the Creator it would mean that the Creator has all possible qualities that are not negative or the absence of another quality, i.e. no shadow, only light and so forth. So anything of a positive nature in our universe must also exist within this Creative Entity, such as intelligence and empathy and energy.

5. We can demonstrate the existence of a soul by observing the ability of the human mind to shift focus from one stimuli to another while nothing changes in regard to the set of stimuli given to the person at all. This is the essence of one's soul, the 'Decider' of ones being, what makes you you. Given the argument from step 4, this implies reasonably that the Creator must also have a similar quality as well.

6. While the Scientific theory of a 'Fine Tuned' universe suggests some form of intelligence behind the formation of our universe, science cannot prove it by definition as that leaves the conditions for which science works, i.e. the conditions of our universe which are natural. We have no idea how the laws of physics might operate in another universe because we cannot, yet, make any observations of them. But we can point out the very rarified conditions that allow for life that suggest a Designer behind them.

So in sum, there are rational arguments for the existence of a Creative entity, the Creator, but nothing that says what the personality is like, name, etc. For that you have to discuss religious topics, and I am not going to that discussion here except to observe that whatever name we apply to the Creator due to our culture or system of faith, if we are thinking of the Creator when we speak of this entity then we are all really talking about the same thing, the Creator of the universe.

 

[Hollie]

I've stated quite eloquently what I am proving.
a. Science now accepts that there was a beginning to the universe....as the Bible states
b. Science now concedes the order of events in Genesis.
c. There is no proof of the century and a half old Darwinian theory.

a. You are correct. Also the mathematics of non-zero time sequential events demonstrates that there must be a beginning of the flow of time, aka the Infinite Regression Fallacy.
Just as you cannot 'count' to infinity, you can also not count down from infinity either.

b-1. The use of the phrase 'science now concedes' is kind ambiguous. The consensus in science is a virtual bubbling stew pot of theories that change annually. At best you can say what the snap shot is at any given time.

b-2. There is also a lot of disagreement about what the 'order of events' in Genesis actually is. It mentions in verse 1:1 that the heavens and the Earth already existed, before going into the sequential day version of events. No one knows what that time interval is since the language and form of the text is not meant to be taken literally but figuratively. The point is a series of moral truths wrapped in cultural myth that Moses through the inspiration of the holy Spirit wanted to include in the narrative. What exactly those moral truths are is a m atter of belief and faith more than simply observable factoids.

c. No, there is plenty of evidence for evolution, especially in virology and infectious diseases, but that does not conflict with the simple unfilte3red message of the Bible which was not written to address modern scientific theories. Also, the theory of Evolution does not include abiogenesis. That is a different unproven theory.

"b-2. There is also a lot of disagreement about what the 'order of events' in Genesis actually is. It mentions in verse 1:1 that the heavens and the Earth already existed, before going into the sequential day version of events."

1.11 God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation: seed-bearing plants, fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so.

1.12 The earth brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.”

’How can we have plants when the sun doesn’t appear until the next day?’ There were the sun, moon, and stars—but they were not visible from the earth’s surface. The earth was still hot at this time and therefore high vapor pressure enveloped it in thick clouds.

The Earth's atmosphere at this time was also much heavier. Its mass was similar to that of today's oceans, and it pushed down on Earth's surface with a pressure of hundreds of bars. (For comparison, the average pressure at the Earth's surface today is 1 bar). It was also opaque — "you would not have been able to see much, just clouds covering everything," [Dave Stevenson, a Caltech professor of planetary science said].” Giant Moon-Forming Impact On Early Earth May Have Spawned Magma Ocean



“I have personally measured photosynthesis, the growth of plants and the pro- duction of oxygen from that photosynthesis on days when the overcast was so heavy no sun or even hints of a sun could be seen through the clouds, but there was plenty of light and the plants were doing fine with their photosynthesis. By the time of Day Four, the earth had cooled; the clouds were opened and the sun, moon, and stars could be visible from the earth.

At first, clouds make it impossible to see if there is a sun, but….photosynthesis can occur.

“As a result, the atmosphere cleared and the sun, moon, and stars became visible. Prior to this period, although the sun’s light could reach the earth, the actual body of the sun was not visible from the earth due to the heavy cloud cover. I personally have measured the photosynthetic production of oxygen on days that were so heavily overcast that although there was light penetrating the cluds, there was no indication of the glow of the sun behind the clouds.” The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives



Sooo…..where’s the problem???

Sooo..,. the problem is a function of your profound ignorance. The gods did not "say" anything in any of the bibles. The bibles were written by men, most of who being unknown.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The shitty behavior of religious people is the single biggest factor in the decline of religiosity of Americans.

Re-post without the vulgarity and I'll provide the response you deserve.

Meanwhile......digest this: Father Jame Altman putting Democrats/Liberals in their place.
….that the Democrats are promising. Riots, murder, food deserts because the groceries have been burned and looted. Real Americans are shocked and disheartened by the encouragement and outright support looters, arsonists, and thugs have received from the major party of the United States.



But it was quite a surprise to see that shock and anger from a precinct that I’ve come to expect to be either silent or actually supportive of the ‘activists’ who are out to destroy our history, tradition, morality and values…….
Yup…..a valiant priest spoke up blistering the thugs, the Democrats, and even his superiors in the Church.

Hate filled defenders of the faith like you are the single biggest reason people walk away from your Jesus fan clubs and never look back. How's that you flaming hypocrite?

Much better.

Here's your response, Democrats/Liberals/Militant Secularists/atheists.

View attachment 359552View attachment 359554View attachment 359555



“…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, or vice versa?”
Ben Shapiro

Christianity is just organized hate when the words of Jesus carry no weight in your attitudes and actions. Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? What is the example you show to the irreligious that Christians are good people? Jesus told us to look at ourselves before we criticize others. I took a close look at my faith years ago and found that American Christianity was nailing Christ back up on the cross every Sunday to shut him up all over again.

"Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? "

I'm glad you asked.....now watch me put you in your place.


The folks on my side are far more charitable than Liberals/Democrats/Progressives.



1."'Tis the season for giving—and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.


2. Arthur Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."


3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.


4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.


5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."


6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.


7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."


8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."


"There's something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving,"...
The Giving Gap




Another custard pie in your ugly kisser, huh?


Here's yet another book you'll never read:

View attachment 359577

I hear no love and charity for anyone in your words and never have. Your politics are nothing except a twisted rationalization for passing by on the other side without guilt.

I proved my point, documented same with Brooks' book.....

...and the best the government school grad can do is ignore it.

There are certainty some very charitable Christians out there but you are not one of them. If you care about anyone but yourself you have never shown it, not even once.

Liberal playbook, page one: when you are defeated by the content, attack the messenger.


NEXT!

Remember in the bible when Jesus was confronting some pious asshole and ended up calling them a hypocrite? You are lost in the woods of religious orthodoxy and have forgotten the core of the faith you claim to have.

I understand your anger, your rage, at seeing your worldview destroyed.....but attempt to post like an adult, not a third grader.

Clean up the language.

All you are doing is showing me that I am correct that your twisted faith is a gigantic lie you tell yourself. Use the bible for something other than a blunt object to hit people with.

Not at all.

I'm simply using you to prove that your sort are ignorant liars who fear to confront your masters.

LOL I do not think you have ever even read the bible. You talk like some kind of Moony cultist.

Actually, I 'talk' like someone who can prove what they say.

Don't you wish you could do the same?


I bet you do.

What are you trying to prove? That you can get into heaven on hate? My bible says otherwise.

I've stated quite eloquently what I am proving.

a. Science now accepts that there was a beginning to the universe....as the Bible states
b. Science now concedes the order of events in Genesis.
c. There is no proof of the century and a half old Darwinian theory.




If you can provide a defense,......why haven't you?

The creationists have been one of the worst offenders when it comes to driving people away from the Christian faith. No matter how the universe started you are being a bad Christian by treating people like garbage.

I'd say it the Marxists and the cowards who accept the indoctrination.

Raise your paw.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Unbeknownst to themselves, dummies decry traditional religion while bowing their head to their own religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic

There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.



1.We don’t often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldn’t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. You’d see ‘em walkin’ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, we’d miss out on a lot of humor, and also, the inspiration to dash off responses, sometimes impolite ones.

Sometimes those dummies open the door to the discussion.


2. The other day, one of the dumbest was irate that I posted criticism of a saint in his religion, Darwinism, and he wrote this:

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!”
Real Science…Not Darwin

BIG LETTERS!!! He sure was mad. But, he did cause me to consider if there is any evidence for the existence of God.



3. And he represents many of those who, no doubt, vote Democrat, and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, you know, the ‘tolerant’ folks. And they get really nasty if you don’t bow down to their god.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
Scientists should be humble, not arrogant



4. Funny thing is, lots of actual scientists write critical papers disputing Darwinism, and many are religious folks, as well.
"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
…the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.

[As for Darwin himself, the] concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??


5. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And that’s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in God….

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.

I'm curious. In all your hot air trumping religion over Darwin, where is your evidence, or, if you will, actual proof that "god" exists or has existed? We're talking courtroom valid, admissible evidence, actual, documented VISIBLE proof, not merely "there's no other valid explanation" "proof." I've asked this question of many religious die hards. I have yet to receive a valid answer!

. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



. Is this evidence for God, or simply an amazing coincidence:
Dr. Andrew Palmer, Oxford biologist, whose book, "The Genesis Enigma," states that the writer of the book of Genesis provides an uncannily similar synopsis of the events in the creation as compared to that accepted by modern science today.



Rather than ridicule the Bible, those very same secular, atheistic scientists have come around to accept the very order that the Old Testament claimed was the course of creation:
The idea of the miraculous confluence of the first chapter of Genesis and the sequence advanced by modern science is as follows:


a. The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


b. From a water covered planet, to terrestrial life. The images in that writer’s mind of how our planet and life came to be must have seemed curious for the knowledge and experience of the time! Yet….he presented it as though it had been dictated to him, as though he had been spoken to by God.


c. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, …then the seas appeared on earth, …and that life forms were photosynthetic.

d. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today.

e. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.

The above largely from chapter nine of zoologist Andrew Parker’s “The Genesis Enigma.”



Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!

Or…an alternative explanation: divine intervention.


But Militant Secularism, also known as Darwinism, became its very own religion, based on as much faith as on proof.

Consider the views of research biochemists: “…many difficulties arise in the claim of chemical autosynthetic events, that must be imagined to have led to functional biopolymers. These problems have been succinctly analyzed by Joyce and Orgel (1999) who concluded that the "de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive Earth would have been a near- miracle."
http://www.arrhenius.ucsd.edu/pub/lifeofchao.html


See….they believe in miracles, too!





9. Sometimes, they admit that they push children’s fables, ‘just so stories,’ on the gullible of their ‘faith.’

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


"...unsubstantiated just-so stories...."
Darwinism is one of those fables.

a. the fossil record proves it incorrect

b. there has never been an observed example of one species becoming another

c. I haven't found it necessary to use my religion to dispute the religion of Darwinism.....watch:

"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275

d. No laboratory has been able to demonstrate DNA created by primordial devices.

There are dozens of scientists who have written similar rejections of Darwinism.

Clearly, there is no reason to support Darwinism being imposed on innocent children, the mission of government school.

 

[PoliticalChic]

" No, there is plenty of evidence for evolution, especially in virology and infectious diseases, ..."
What is it?

The way in which bacteria and viruses adapt to anti-biotics for example.

That is Evolution in action.

Another factoid you might consider, most people who beieve in Evolution are also people who believe in a Creator.

The Catholic church of Rome and Eastern Catholics, and most main stream protestants do not deny Evolution as a matter of doctrine or dogma, and also believe in God.

You are conflating micro-evolution with macro-evolution.


One way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism. “ Futuyma, Evolution, p. 401.


“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”







And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in Nature: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've stated quite eloquently what I am proving.
a. Science now accepts that there was a beginning to the universe....as the Bible states
b. Science now concedes the order of events in Genesis.
c. There is no proof of the century and a half old Darwinian theory.

a. You are correct. Also the mathematics of non-zero time sequential events demonstrates that there must be a beginning of the flow of time, aka the Infinite Regression Fallacy.
Just as you cannot 'count' to infinity, you can also not count down from infinity either.

b-1. The use of the phrase 'science now concedes' is kind ambiguous. The consensus in science is a virtual bubbling stew pot of theories that change annually. At best you can say what the snap shot is at any given time.

b-2. There is also a lot of disagreement about what the 'order of events' in Genesis actually is. It mentions in verse 1:1 that the heavens and the Earth already existed, before going into the sequential day version of events. No one knows what that time interval is since the language and form of the text is not meant to be taken literally but figuratively. The point is a series of moral truths wrapped in cultural myth that Moses through the inspiration of the holy Spirit wanted to include in the narrative. What exactly those moral truths are is a m atter of belief and faith more than simply observable factoids.

c. No, there is plenty of evidence for evolution, especially in virology and infectious diseases, but that does not conflict with the simple unfilte3red message of the Bible which was not written to address modern scientific theories. Also, the theory of Evolution does not include abiogenesis. That is a different unproven theory.

"b-2. There is also a lot of disagreement about what the 'order of events' in Genesis actually is. It mentions in verse 1:1 that the heavens and the Earth already existed, before going into the sequential day version of events."

1.11 God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation: seed-bearing plants, fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so.

1.12 The earth brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.”

’How can we have plants when the sun doesn’t appear until the next day?’ There were the sun, moon, and stars—but they were not visible from the earth’s surface. The earth was still hot at this time and therefore high vapor pressure enveloped it in thick clouds.

The Earth's atmosphere at this time was also much heavier. Its mass was similar to that of today's oceans, and it pushed down on Earth's surface with a pressure of hundreds of bars. (For comparison, the average pressure at the Earth's surface today is 1 bar). It was also opaque — "you would not have been able to see much, just clouds covering everything," [Dave Stevenson, a Caltech professor of planetary science said].” Giant Moon-Forming Impact On Early Earth May Have Spawned Magma Ocean



“I have personally measured photosynthesis, the growth of plants and the pro- duction of oxygen from that photosynthesis on days when the overcast was so heavy no sun or even hints of a sun could be seen through the clouds, but there was plenty of light and the plants were doing fine with their photosynthesis. By the time of Day Four, the earth had cooled; the clouds were opened and the sun, moon, and stars could be visible from the earth.

At first, clouds make it impossible to see if there is a sun, but….photosynthesis can occur.

“As a result, the atmosphere cleared and the sun, moon, and stars became visible. Prior to this period, although the sun’s light could reach the earth, the actual body of the sun was not visible from the earth due to the heavy cloud cover. I personally have measured the photosynthetic production of oxygen on days that were so heavily overcast that although there was light penetrating the cluds, there was no indication of the glow of the sun behind the clouds.” The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives



Sooo…..where’s the problem???

No problem at all, I agree with that.

I think Genesis is the record of oral history of the Toba catastrophe which caused a volcanic winter that lasted for years. The 'Creation' story is actually, IMOP, a record of the oral history of life returning to the Earth and the joy of the human beings that survived it.

Also, some plants can grow in ambient light and do not need direct sunlight.

I find it astounding how accurate the order of events in Genesis mirror what is believed today, and that came from ancient peoples who lived in a desert.

Yet Darwinists bend the knee and the neck to predictions that have never come to pass, and never been seen.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My five personal reasons, as such, that cause me to believe in a Creator.


1) Without the reality of the Mind of the Creator, our universe is nothing more than Chaos, but instead we see design, law and beauty in every scale, element and reflection of Nature and our universe.

2) In general, the vast majority of Believers are successful through their lives and those given to atheism appear to be mostly failures, consumed with self destructive behavior and justifying it to themselves and others in their lives by denying the foundations of moral restrictions.

3) I have directly experienced the Presence of the Creator and I will never doubt His existence ever again in my life.

4) The Infinite Regression Fallacy requires an Eternal Creator that can reach into the flow of time. The Trinity is the only concept of such a Creator I am familiar with.

5) Seeing the transcendent peace of those with deep faith in my life convinces me beyond the ability of arguments to do so.

I would add to that that in order to be a secularist, one must attribute no meaning to life.

This:
"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

 

[PoliticalChic]

Additional arguments from observation and meditation for why a Creator Exists.

These are not air-tight unassailable arguments, or syllogisms, etc. These are simply some observations that I have had over the years that have strengthened my belief in the reality of a Creator.

1. The Infinite Regression Fallacy. It is widely understood that one cannot count from 1 to infinity because there is no final number that terminates the count. The Infinite Regression Fallacy is an expression that the opposite, counting down from infinity to any finite number, is also impossible because there is no initial point from which one begins. And so we cannot be here due to an infinite chain of segments of time that are of finite, non-Zero, duration. So there must be a starting point to the flow of time. That Initiator of time and space is the Creator, whatever the nature of it, it must be eternal and outside the flow of time.

2. Physics shows us that the greater the mass of an entity, the slower the flow of time is for it, similar to the increase in mass of an object approaching the speed of light. Anything entirely outside the flow of time must be infinite in mass, and therefore energy as well since they are merely different forms of the same thing.

3. In mathematics the Transfinite Number system, created and proven to be valid by Cantor, gives us a model for a 'largest infinite set' which Cantor called the Continuum. This is the set of all possible sets, and Cantor believed it proved the existence of the Creator. I am using it merely to present a rational model for an infinite eternal entity, in this particular argument. This shows the concept of an infinite Creator to be rational and not 'magic'.

4. In Cantors sets of numbers, while the numbers themselves can be null or empty, there is no negative count of elements in the sets. All sets are of a positive count or empty, no negatives exist within it. So to apply this model to the Creator it would mean that the Creator has all possible qualities that are not negative or the absence of another quality, i.e. no shadow, only light and so forth. So anything of a positive nature in our universe must also exist within this Creative Entity, such as intelligence and empathy and energy.

5. We can demonstrate the existence of a soul by observing the ability of the human mind to shift focus from one stimuli to another while nothing changes in regard to the set of stimuli given to the person at all. This is the essence of one's soul, the 'Decider' of ones being, what makes you you. Given the argument from step 4, this implies reasonably that the Creator must also have a similar quality as well.

6. While the Scientific theory of a 'Fine Tuned' universe suggests some form of intelligence behind the formation of our universe, science cannot prove it by definition as that leaves the conditions for which science works, i.e. the conditions of our universe which are natural. We have no idea how the laws of physics might operate in another universe because we cannot, yet, make any observations of them. But we can point out the very rarified conditions that allow for life that suggest a Designer behind them.

So in sum, there are rational arguments for the existence of a Creative entity, the Creator, but nothing that says what the personality is like, name, etc. For that you have to discuss religious topics, and I am not going to that discussion here except to observe that whatever name we apply to the Creator due to our culture or system of faith, if we are thinking of the Creator when we speak of this entity then we are all really talking about the same thing, the Creator of the universe.

Very well articulated.

 

[Hollie]

Unbeknownst to themselves, dummies decry traditional religion while bowing their head to their own religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic

There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.



1.We don’t often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldn’t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. You’d see ‘em walkin’ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, we’d miss out on a lot of humor, and also, the inspiration to dash off responses, sometimes impolite ones.

Sometimes those dummies open the door to the discussion.


2. The other day, one of the dumbest was irate that I posted criticism of a saint in his religion, Darwinism, and he wrote this:

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!”
Real Science…Not Darwin

BIG LETTERS!!! He sure was mad. But, he did cause me to consider if there is any evidence for the existence of God.



3. And he represents many of those who, no doubt, vote Democrat, and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, you know, the ‘tolerant’ folks. And they get really nasty if you don’t bow down to their god.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
Scientists should be humble, not arrogant



4. Funny thing is, lots of actual scientists write critical papers disputing Darwinism, and many are religious folks, as well.
"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
…the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.

[As for Darwin himself, the] concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??


5. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And that’s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in God….

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.

I'm curious. In all your hot air trumping religion over Darwin, where is your evidence, or, if you will, actual proof that "god" exists or has existed? We're talking courtroom valid, admissible evidence, actual, documented VISIBLE proof, not merely "there's no other valid explanation" "proof." I've asked this question of many religious die hards. I have yet to receive a valid answer!

. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



. Is this evidence for God, or simply an amazing coincidence:
Dr. Andrew Palmer, Oxford biologist, whose book, "The Genesis Enigma," states that the writer of the book of Genesis provides an uncannily similar synopsis of the events in the creation as compared to that accepted by modern science today.



Rather than ridicule the Bible, those very same secular, atheistic scientists have come around to accept the very order that the Old Testament claimed was the course of creation:
The idea of the miraculous confluence of the first chapter of Genesis and the sequence advanced by modern science is as follows:


a. The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


b. From a water covered planet, to terrestrial life. The images in that writer’s mind of how our planet and life came to be must have seemed curious for the knowledge and experience of the time! Yet….he presented it as though it had been dictated to him, as though he had been spoken to by God.


c. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, …then the seas appeared on earth, …and that life forms were photosynthetic.

d. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today.

e. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.

The above largely from chapter nine of zoologist Andrew Parker’s “The Genesis Enigma.”



Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!

Or…an alternative explanation: divine intervention.


But Militant Secularism, also known as Darwinism, became its very own religion, based on as much faith as on proof.

Consider the views of research biochemists: “…many difficulties arise in the claim of chemical autosynthetic events, that must be imagined to have led to functional biopolymers. These problems have been succinctly analyzed by Joyce and Orgel (1999) who concluded that the "de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive Earth would have been a near- miracle."
http://www.arrhenius.ucsd.edu/pub/lifeofchao.html


See….they believe in miracles, too!





9. Sometimes, they admit that they push children’s fables, ‘just so stories,’ on the gullible of their ‘faith.’

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


"...unsubstantiated just-so stories...."
Darwinism is one of those fables.

a. the fossil record proves it incorrect

b. there has never been an observed example of one species becoming another

c. I haven't found it necessary to use my religion to dispute the religion of Darwinism.....watch:

"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275

d. No laboratory has been able to demonstrate DNA created by primordial devices.

There are dozens of scientists who have written similar rejections of Darwinism.

Clearly, there is no reason to support Darwinism being imposed on innocent children, the mission of government school.

Here’s some interesting Prager information.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Dennis Prager is a fundie rightwing radio host, pseudo-intellectual, and regular contributor to Townhall, where he tries to argue that the United States is a Christian nation and that liberals are bad. As opposed to some radio hosts Prager seems to know something about history and religion, but mixes it readily with bizarre untruths, Jonanism, nonsense, and psychological projection, for instance with regard to his claim that ‘the Left’ allows their ‘feelings’ to get in the way of policy; Prager himself would of course never do that. A fine example of Prager’s general acumen is displayed in this rant, where he argues that The Left is hateful. Why? Because they call right-wingers … hateful, and rightwingers don’t call leftists hateful. That’s the premise, and Prager is evidently unaware of the dialectical position he has put himself in. Hilarity ensues.

 

[alang1216]

Everything in my Science posts was based on science alone, and all my quotes were of scientists.
[...]
". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

You can't mean this G.R. Taylor since that would make you a liar:

Gordon Rattray Taylor (11 January 1911 – 7 December 1981) was a popular British author and journalist​

And?

Brilliant defense! So much more erudite than "is not".

Defense???

From what?

I inferred you were a liar. OK, I'll be more clear, YOU ARE A LIAR. That better?

 

[Hollie]

I would add to that that in order to be a secularist, one must attribute no meaning to life.

It’s actually comical when religious extremists argue against matters of science they don’t understand.


This:


“I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough – I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[Hollie]

I've stated quite eloquently what I am proving.
a. Science now accepts that there was a beginning to the universe....as the Bible states
b. Science now concedes the order of events in Genesis.
c. There is no proof of the century and a half old Darwinian theory.

a. You are correct. Also the mathematics of non-zero time sequential events demonstrates that there must be a beginning of the flow of time, aka the Infinite Regression Fallacy.
Just as you cannot 'count' to infinity, you can also not count down from infinity either.

b-1. The use of the phrase 'science now concedes' is kind ambiguous. The consensus in science is a virtual bubbling stew pot of theories that change annually. At best you can say what the snap shot is at any given time.

b-2. There is also a lot of disagreement about what the 'order of events' in Genesis actually is. It mentions in verse 1:1 that the heavens and the Earth already existed, before going into the sequential day version of events. No one knows what that time interval is since the language and form of the text is not meant to be taken literally but figuratively. The point is a series of moral truths wrapped in cultural myth that Moses through the inspiration of the holy Spirit wanted to include in the narrative. What exactly those moral truths are is a m atter of belief and faith more than simply observable factoids.

c. No, there is plenty of evidence for evolution, especially in virology and infectious diseases, but that does not conflict with the simple unfilte3red message of the Bible which was not written to address modern scientific theories. Also, the theory of Evolution does not include abiogenesis. That is a different unproven theory.

"b-2. There is also a lot of disagreement about what the 'order of events' in Genesis actually is. It mentions in verse 1:1 that the heavens and the Earth already existed, before going into the sequential day version of events."

1.11 God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation: seed-bearing plants, fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so.

1.12 The earth brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.”

’How can we have plants when the sun doesn’t appear until the next day?’ There were the sun, moon, and stars—but they were not visible from the earth’s surface. The earth was still hot at this time and therefore high vapor pressure enveloped it in thick clouds.

The Earth's atmosphere at this time was also much heavier. Its mass was similar to that of today's oceans, and it pushed down on Earth's surface with a pressure of hundreds of bars. (For comparison, the average pressure at the Earth's surface today is 1 bar). It was also opaque — "you would not have been able to see much, just clouds covering everything," [Dave Stevenson, a Caltech professor of planetary science said].” Giant Moon-Forming Impact On Early Earth May Have Spawned Magma Ocean



“I have personally measured photosynthesis, the growth of plants and the pro- duction of oxygen from that photosynthesis on days when the overcast was so heavy no sun or even hints of a sun could be seen through the clouds, but there was plenty of light and the plants were doing fine with their photosynthesis. By the time of Day Four, the earth had cooled; the clouds were opened and the sun, moon, and stars could be visible from the earth.

At first, clouds make it impossible to see if there is a sun, but….photosynthesis can occur.

“As a result, the atmosphere cleared and the sun, moon, and stars became visible. Prior to this period, although the sun’s light could reach the earth, the actual body of the sun was not visible from the earth due to the heavy cloud cover. I personally have measured the photosynthetic production of oxygen on days that were so heavily overcast that although there was light penetrating the cluds, there was no indication of the glow of the sun behind the clouds.” The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives



Sooo…..where’s the problem???

No problem at all, I agree with that.

I think Genesis is the record of oral history of the Toba catastrophe which caused a volcanic winter that lasted for years. The 'Creation' story is actually, IMOP, a record of the oral history of life returning to the Earth and the joy of the human beings that survived it.

Also, some plants can grow in ambient light and do not need direct sunlight.

I find it astounding how accurate the order of events in Genesis mirror what is believed today, and that came from ancient peoples who lived in a desert.

Yet Darwinists bend the knee and the neck to predictions that have never come to pass, and never been seen.

You’re easily amused.

You’re also astounded by shiny objects, right?

 

[alang1216]

a. the fossil record proves it incorrect

b. there has never been an observed example of one species becoming another

c. I haven't found it necessary to use my religion to dispute the religion of Darwinism.....watch:

"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275

d. No laboratory has been able to demonstrate DNA created by primordial devices.

Sorry but a. and b. are incorrect.

As for c., what 'innovation' cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps? None that I know of.

As for d., I'd ask, so what? Evolution never required DNA, only the ability to reproduce.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Everything in my Science posts was based on science alone, and all my quotes were of scientists.
[...]
". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

You can't mean this G.R. Taylor since that would make you a liar:

Gordon Rattray Taylor (11 January 1911 – 7 December 1981) was a popular British author and journalist​

And?

Brilliant defense! So much more erudite than "is not".

Defense???

From what?

I inferred you were a liar. OK, I'll be more clear, YOU ARE A LIAR. That better?

I never lies.


But....lying seems to be all you can offer.


Crawl away.

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. the fossil record proves it incorrect

b. there has never been an observed example of one species becoming another

c. I haven't found it necessary to use my religion to dispute the religion of Darwinism.....watch:

"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275

d. No laboratory has been able to demonstrate DNA created by primordial devices.

Sorry but a. and b. are incorrect.

As for c., what 'innovation' cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps? None that I know of.

As for d., I'd ask, so what? Evolution never required DNA, only the ability to reproduce.

Sometimes a poster will make a remark so astoundingly stupid that they become the example against which all stupidity must be judged. You've managed to produce same.

"Evolution never required DNA, only the ability to reproduce."


Anyone who reads this pronouncement by you will recognize that there are garden implement that know more than you do.