Waiting For Godot???

[rightwinger]

Believing in the theory of evolution requires far more faith, than belief in God. ...

There is overwhelming evidence through fossils, geology, biology and DNA that evolution is a FACT

There is no evidence that God exists. He is at best, an unproven theory

 

[Sunni Man]

There is overwhelming evidence through fossils, geology, biology and DNA that evolution is a FACT

Evidence does not equal Fact. ...

 

[abu afak]

184 years and counting!!!
On this date, October 2nd, 1836, Charles Darwin returned to England.
View attachment 396020
"Charles Darwin's return to England
Naturalist Charles Darwin returned to England this day in 1836 after a five-year journey on the HMS Beagle, on which he gathered the specimens and observations that led to his theory of evolution by natural selection."
Britannica.com


As of this moment.....with more scientists feverishly at work than in all of history, not a single example of one species becoming another has been found.

"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.

""As of this moment.....with more scientists feverishly at work than in all of history, not a single example of one species becoming another has been found.""

LIE:
IT/THEY certainly has, including with US/Humans evolving from Proto-Apes like all the other Primates.

And the person you cite/Kenyon is a one-in-1000 "Young Earth Creationist" Biologist!
He, like you, believes the earth is 6000 years old!
You know, that Dinosaurs had to be on the fictional Noah's ark.

You 7/11 Adventist Clown.

`

`

 

[task0778]

Since we're all talking about theory, let me throw out my own:

The theory of evolution in no way denies the possibility that God exists. Evolution may simply be the means to which God allowed life to evolve from single cell bacteria to us, and BTW we might not be the end product either. To date we have not been able to create life, but even if we eventually do that does not mean God didn't do it first.

And DA was right the Godot reference in the thread title did kinda catch my eye. I immediately thought PC misspelled Gadot, and here I am. Nice pic DA, and my apologies PC for doubting your writing abilities.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here are three facts that indicate the failure of government schooling:

1. A large number of victims of government school leave with the impression that Darwin's theory is a fact, and has been proven. Of course, that is false.
2. Almost none of said victims are aware that there are a number of theories of evolution in addition to Darwin's....none of which are taught to the students. This is because Darwin's serves neo-Marxism.
3. The same clueless individuals champion Darwinism and Hillary Clinton. Darwin was the honest one.


Although this editorial referred to the Barrett-antiCatholicism, the headline certainly applies:
"Democrats Emerging As Heirs To Know-Nothing Party"

Democrats Emerging As Heirs To Know-Nothing Party

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

www.nysun.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is overwhelming evidence through fossils, geology, biology and DNA that evolution is a FACT

Evidence does not equal Fact. ...

There is no evidence that proves Darwin's theory.

Evident from the fact that none of the claimants can produce same.

 

[abu afak]

Since we're all talking about theory, let me throw out my own:

The theory of evolution in no way denies the possibility that God exists. Evolution may simply be the means to which God allowed life to evolve from single cell bacteria to us, and BTW we might not be the end product either. To date we have not been able to create life, but even if we eventually do that does not mean God didn't do it first.

And DA was right the Godot reference in the thread title did kinda catch my eye. I immediately thought PC misspelled Gadot, and here I am. Nice pic DA, and my apologies PC for doubting your writing abilities.

The Theory of Evolution DOES Contradict god if you are a Whacked Biblical literalist as the OP is.
If "NO species became another" as she/they claim, then there is No Evolution.

Try again, and try to be more precise/straightforward next time.

`

 

[iamwhatiseem]

She must have evolved into a woman with no boobs

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since we're all talking about theory, let me throw out my own:

The theory of evolution in no way denies the possibility that God exists. Evolution may simply be the means to which God allowed life to evolve from single cell bacteria to us, and BTW we might not be the end product either. To date we have not been able to create life, but even if we eventually do that does not mean God didn't do it first.

And DA was right the Godot reference in the thread title did kinda catch my eye. I immediately thought PC misspelled Gadot, and here I am. Nice pic DA, and my apologies PC for doubting your writing abilities.

Thanks for that.....as I said, there are a number of theories with as much support for them as Darwin's version.
But Darwin has the benefit to Marxists of supporting atheism.

 

[konradv]

"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."

Complete transmutation? What's that supposed to mean? It's certainly not something Darwin or other evolutionary scientists claimed. Also, evolution has never been observed directly, because of the time spans involved. The only way scientific troglodytes have of criticizing evolutionary theory is by creating a straw-man to attack

Really?

What did Darwin claim?

Not that one species becomes a new and different species?

Of course he did, you dunce.

And.....why is there still zero proof of his, and your, claims?

The quote said "complete transformation". That's the term used when anti-evolutionists talk about dogs turning into cats and the like. Darwin never suggested anything of the sort.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I have often wondered why evolution must be a lie in order for intelligent design to exist?
Why can they not both be true?

 

[abu afak]

I have often wondered why evolution must be a lie in order for intelligent design to exist?
Why can they not both be true?

Intelligent Design (Stealth Creationism), needs/implies a DesignER/god.
ooooph.
and see my post above.
Try answering it.
`

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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."

Complete transmutation? What's that supposed to mean? It's certainly not something Darwin or other evolutionary scientists claimed. Also, evolution has never been observed directly, because of the time spans involved. The only way scientific troglodytes have of criticizing evolutionary theory is by creating a straw-man to attack

Really?

What did Darwin claim?

Not that one species becomes a new and different species?

Of course he did, you dunce.

And.....why is there still zero proof of his, and your, claims?

The quote said "complete transformation". That's the term used when anti-evolutionists talk about dogs turning into cats and the like. Darwin never suggested anything of the sort.

I asked you for proof, after correcting your statement that Darwin's theory didn't require new species formation.

You didn't provide any,....because you can't.

I never said I was anti-evolution, whatever that means....I said that you are a fool for never having demanded proof to Darwinism.

You remain a fool.
Or a liar.


"...anti-evolutionists talk about dogs turning into cats and the like. Darwin never suggested anything of the sort."
Go back and do some reading and you will find that that is exactly what is required for Darwin's thesis to be correct.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have often wondered why evolution must be a lie in order for intelligent design to exist?
Why can they not both be true?

I'll stick to my exposition about Darwinism, but intelligent design is a theory of evolution.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I have often wondered why evolution must be a lie in order for intelligent design to exist?
Why can they not both be true?

Intelligent Design (Stealth Creationism), needs/implies a DesignER/god.
ooooph.
and see my post above.
Try answering it.
`

Doesn't answer my question.
yes obviously intelligent design needs a God to be true.
At the same time, why would evolution prove there is none?
You can be a literalist both ways.
Evolution is undeniable in examples of species perfectly matching their surroundings, and physical alterations that exists as surroundings changed. Humans are a good example of it.

 

[task0778]

I have often wondered why evolution must be a lie in order for intelligent design to exist?
Why can they not both be true?

They can both be true, but they can also both be false. At the end of the day, each of us can chose to believe one or both to be true or one or both to be false, or chose to withhold believing anything. There are IMHO better reasons to believe both are probably true, there are so many things we choose to believe without proof, no? Maybe we should also consider whether it is beneficial to us as individuals and as a society to believe something to be true ahead of the proof that may never come. How is your life impacted one way or another based on what you believe to be true even if you can't prove it? There could be more of an impact than you know.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I have often wondered why evolution must be a lie in order for intelligent design to exist?
Why can they not both be true?

They can both be true, but they can also both be false. At the end of the day, each of us can chose to believe one or both to be true or one or both to be false, or chose to withhold believing anything. There are IMHO better reasons to believe both are probably true, there are so many things we choose to believe without proof, no? Maybe we should also consider whether it is beneficial to us as individuals and as a society to believe something to be true ahead of the proof that may never come. How is your life impacted one way or another based on what you believe to be true even if you can't prove it? There could be more of an impact than you know.

I disagree.
I guess I would say I am agnostic.
On one hand, I myself have both witnessed and experienced 100% proof of some spiritual plane. I don't know what it was, but it was. And what it was, was not of our physical plane. So something exist that is not just us.
At the same time, as I say, humans are a great example of evolution. Homo erectus existed. As did neanderthals, as did heidelbergensis. You can't deny their existence. We came from these. We evolved from these.

 

[abu afak]

They can both be true, but they can also both be false. At the end of the day, each of us can chose to believe one or both to be true or one or both to be false, or chose to withhold believing anything. There are IMHO better reasons to believe both are probably true, there are so many things we choose to believe without proof, no? Maybe we should also consider whether it is beneficial to us as individuals and as a society to believe something to be true ahead of the proof that may never come. How is your life impacted one way or another based on what you believe to be true even if you can't prove it? There could be more of an impact than you know.

Except there is NO Evidence for god/godS (and you gotta pick Which/Witch one!),
But Overwhelming evidence for evolution.

You can indeed choose to believe anything you want, but that does not mean it's rational to do so based on evidence.

So just a vacuous statement on your part.
`

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have often wondered why evolution must be a lie in order for intelligent design to exist?
Why can they not both be true?

They can both be true, but they can also both be false. At the end of the day, each of us can chose to believe one or both to be true or one or both to be false, or chose to withhold believing anything. There are IMHO better reasons to believe both are probably true, there are so many things we choose to believe without proof, no? Maybe we should also consider whether it is beneficial to us as individuals and as a society to believe something to be true ahead of the proof that may never come. How is your life impacted one way or another based on what you believe to be true even if you can't prove it? There could be more of an impact than you know.

"At the end of the day, each of us can chose to believe one or both to be true or one or both to be false, or chose to withhold believing anything. "

Here's the problem with that view.

You've noticed that there are two distinct precincts on this board: religion, and science.

While there is a distinct attack on religion by the Left/Democrats, in reality what they claim as science, Darwinism, is a part of their religion, Militant Secularism.



“The secularists Stewart represents just refuse to acknowledge that their religious beliefs are in fact religious beliefs, and of a far creepier and deadlier kind than Christians’.

….the belief that it is possible to fix the world by applying government pressure? That is not a belief that can be wholly validated by research or experience. In fact, research and experience both indicate that central planning usually makes life even more nasty, brutish, and short.

So what is this unfounded, undocumented, unprovable faith in government power to correct human psyches and behavior if not a religious (metaphysical) belief? It is also an unprovable and metaphysical belief about what a human is — a thing that can be “corrected” by politics and whose “error” is not intrinsic to itself. Again, these are all metaphysical, religious beliefs with no empirical basis or possibility of being fully empirically proven.

The secular, pagan, atheist types are the ones who claim religious assumptions are evil. They do so because they erroneously believe they are free from such assumptions. But in truth, no one is.”” Barr: The People Trying To 'Impose Their Values' Are 'Militant Secularists'

[have you accepted the state as your lord and savior]




...there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have often wondered why evolution must be a lie in order for intelligent design to exist?
Why can they not both be true?

They can both be true, but they can also both be false. At the end of the day, each of us can chose to believe one or both to be true or one or both to be false, or chose to withhold believing anything. There are IMHO better reasons to believe both are probably true, there are so many things we choose to believe without proof, no? Maybe we should also consider whether it is beneficial to us as individuals and as a society to believe something to be true ahead of the proof that may never come. How is your life impacted one way or another based on what you believe to be true even if you can't prove it? There could be more of an impact than you know.

I disagree.
I guess I would say I am agnostic.
On one hand, I myself have both witnessed and experienced 100% proof of some spiritual plane. I don't know what it was, but it was. And what it was, was not of our physical plane. So something exist that is not just us.
At the same time, as I say, humans are a great example of evolution. Homo erectus existed. As did neanderthals, as did heidelbergensis. You can't deny their existence. We came from these. We evolved from these.

What we require is proof that one of those examples you provided 'evolved' into another.

And even if they differ in a number of characteristics, you have to show that they are different species.


Let me define that:
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.

Unless you claim that Neanderthals are today's Democrats, how do we tell if they can interbreed with Homo sapiens?