Evolution is a farce: Evidence

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

i'll say it right now....in addition to having not completely ruled out the notion that there might have been some kind of external force or entity, that deliberately created life on earth, or at least got the ball rolling(hell, we could even be the result of an accidentally unfinished experiment)....i'm also not(believe it or not) against the idea of religion....

that being said, religion is not for me. now, what i AM against is ORGANIZED religion. your relationship with whatever god, or gods, you believe in, is supposed to be a personal relationship...it's not supposed to be a group activity. and it's certainly not supposed to be a platform for mocking, ridiculing, and hurting those who don't think and believe as you do.

you want to have a personal relationship with jesus christ? go for it....believe whatever makes you feel better. but don't call it fact, don't say science is bunk because it disagrees with it....don't be an extremist zealot of the organized religion army...just keep your belief personal, and try to co-exist with everyone else...

i've probably done a rubbish job of expressing my views, as i'm not fully awake just yet, but i hope i've put enough here so that you, and others, can get an idea of where i'm coming from...

a reply to: Daedalus

ffs man, all you're doing is moving the goalposts around..

Its 2-2 at the 89th minute mark in the soccer game between christians and evolutionists. Whilst the christians hold hands to pray for rain so it could be at least a draw...the evolutionists take the saying "god helps those who help themselves" to heart and sneak the decider right past them.

the moral of the story...we take you live for a comment from the Christians captain.
"That wasnt fair...we were in prayer...or
"Satans at work here chaps...see how they steal a goal...

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

looks more like 8:0 for the evolutionists and the creationists smeared the referee so he keeps on let them play & play far after the 120th minute... (because he know they wouldn't stand a chance at a penalty shoot-out, blind as they are, with weak legs, uch it's painfull to watch)

a reply to: Hanslune

I bet he'll start another thread with an equally incendiary title

But it wasnt even his thread. The poster Technique started it and disappeared like he has in so many multiple threads recently. And then came borntowatch as rearguard action.

a reply to: Daedalus

You did a fine job of explaining your views, and it goes right to the heart of the matter under discussion.

It's not about "belief" but about what can be proven.

It's about material evidence that any one of us can actually go look at for ourselves, versus ... an invisible being for which the only available evidence is millenias old written "records" (and I use that last very generally).

Seeing the facts of evolution, at least until a more encompassing explaination is provided that actually addresses the evidence at hand, as opposite to the belief-based material offered heretofore, seems completely rational to me, Daedalus.

a reply to: borntowatch

yes, because you've just hit the nail on the head....

the book was written in a time when people's understanding of the world around them was SEVERELY limited, compared to today...additionally, it has been translated, re-translated, interpreted, and twisted so many times over thousands of years....so who's to say that the book you hold in such high regard, is even MARGINALLY similar to it's original form?

at this point, i could take a copy of the original novelization of "Star Wars", and say it is just as true as the bible, and you'd have no way to disprove it, because even if the author said it was based on a movie, and lucas said he made it all up, i could argue he is sensitive to the force, and it inspired him to write the story..

a reply to: borntowatch

just read a 2 to 6000 year old book and believe its written with modern scientific concepts and in English.

Oh...so the flood didnt happen or that the earth wasnt built in 7 days or whatever.

So what you are essentially saying is that you woke up one day and the bible was downloaded into you (a la Matrix movie style) in the "greek" and scientific concepts like what? That there was no worldwide flood. You're not making sense...or is this like a mystery quest?

Could the others be on the right track? Do I smell Orc...i mean troll...oops

a reply to: borntowatch

, get over it.

live with it.

I am gladly over it...I live life...and enjoy it. Such a freedom from the bipolar jehovah.
Ah...but back on the post of mine you just responded to...Josephus...remember...

Off to sleep to dream of orcs, maybe there'll be a new thread by techunique started when I wake up. And then along comes borntowatch....maybe they're one and the same?

Nah cant be TechUnique has stared another 13 threads since this. Wow the strength...must be all that manna.

I may not come back to this thread but then again I may...Depends...as god wills...hehe

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

It was however a response from born to watch to me

a reply to: borntowatch

Micro and Macro are a distinction you place, not those who research evolution. You really must try to keep up neighbor.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: borntowatch

So you accept that "microevolution" occurs. What then is the biological mechanism that prevents the small changes of "microevolution" from accruing into the larges changes of "macroevolution?"

You dont want to know, you just want to see if I know
I dont mind what you think of me

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

i'll say it right now....in addition to having not completely ruled out the notion that there might have been some kind of external force or entity, that deliberately created life on earth, or at least got the ball rolling(hell, we could even be the result of an accidentally unfinished experiment)....i'm also not(believe it or not) against the idea of religion....

that being said, religion is not for me. now, what i AM against is ORGANIZED religion. your relationship with whatever god, or gods, you believe in, is supposed to be a personal relationship...it's not supposed to be a group activity. and it's certainly not supposed to be a platform for mocking, ridiculing, and hurting those who don't think and believe as you do.

you want to have a personal relationship with jesus christ? go for it....believe whatever makes you feel better. but don't call it fact, don't say science is bunk because it disagrees with it....don't be an extremist zealot of the organized religion army...just keep your belief personal, and try to co-exist with everyone else...

i've probably done a rubbish job of expressing my views, as i'm not fully awake just yet, but i hope i've put enough here so that you, and others, can get an idea of where i'm coming from...

You have done a perfect job of expressing those views, believe it or not they are very similar to mine except from my side of the fence.
Evolutionist have made this thread a platform for mocking, ridiculing, and hurting those who don't think and believe as they do.
Strangely enough if you read my posts I try very hard not to mock, belittle people for their views.
As has been noted on many occasions many Christians believe in evolution. Should I mock evolutionists for their beliefs, I in turn would be mocking fellow Christians.
Yes its true, Christ called Christians to love everyone, thats why I dont (or try not) let this get personal, mock anyone. Oddly enough I do see some reasonable evidence to see the reality of evolution, though upon further study it strikes me as circumstantial as opposed to direct.

I would be surprised if I have belittled anyone in this thread, yet because I dont follow the evolutionist mantra I become the target.

Its all good, I can always put on a Kent Hovind DVD and get fixed again

a reply to: borntowatch

I must show my respect, without any sarcasm here, for the way you have hold-on to your current understanding of the biblical scriptures. Techunique, thread owner, gave up a while ago.
Should you have felt mock, by me among others, please understand that this is likely to happen if you put yourself in an uncomfortable situation.

Given the amount of embarrassing posts I sent you, I wonder why you didn't find more empiric evidences to wash away the inconsistencies I pointed out in your scriptures.
You have to realise also that even if you could 'prove' creation, this would not prove the scriptures. This may as well prove the Koran for some. So it's counterproductive and dangerous for the scriptures themselves.

Acknowledge the evidences, evolution does not disprove God(s).
What is the most important is the morale, the teaching you get about right/wrong in the scriptures.
And I don't see how a Kent Hovind DVD can help.

You said earlier you splashed Hollywoodians demons with holy water, watch my avatar's reaction.
He is now teaching lessons about a core Christian value : forgiveness.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: borntowatch

I must show my respect, without any sarcasm here, for the way you have hold-on to your current understanding of the biblical scriptures. Techunique, thread owner, gave up a while ago.
Should you have felt mock, by me among others, please understand that this is likely to happen if you put yourself in an uncomfortable situation.

Given the amount of embarrassing posts I sent you, I wonder why you didn't find more empiric evidences to wash away the inconsistencies I pointed out in your scriptures.

Maybe because this isn't a theological debate. I just saw your worn out tirade against the Bibles "inconsistencies" that I see everyday on the religious thread as an attempt to veer the discussion away from the science you all claim is "evidence" for evolution. For someone who doesn't believe in the Bible, you do seem terribly concerned about pointing its "inconsistencies". if I didn't believe in the Bible I wouldn't really care what the Bible said to begin with.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjokeYou have to realise also that even if you could 'prove' creation, this would not prove the scriptures. This may as well prove the Koran for some. So it's counterproductive and dangerous for the scriptures themselves.

This isn't so much about proving creationism, because we really don't have to. As I have shown in intricate detail earlier in this thread about why Yahweh being supernatural can be the only true source of all life, your stance against creation means absolutely nothing since it hasn't been proven that the origin of life can come about by naturalistic means. Abiogenesis, the theory of random generation, which once upon a time was critical to the entire theory of evolution has been disproven a hundred times over, so much so that most evolutionists will distance themselves from the origin of life problem altogether. This isn't confirmation bias, this is deductive reasoning, and by the process of elimination, it leaves Yahweh as the most likely cause of life.

a reply to: borntowatch

It is not that you don't agree with evolution. You are entitled to your opinion. its that you openly criticized a solidly established field of scientific study and thereby insult the intelligence of thousands of esteemed researchers spanning both the globe and the decades, based largely on bronze age mythology and a contextually insensitive application of facts stuck together with the decidedly unscientific glue of presupposition. That is what we take issue with. you want to call creationism a fitting rival for evolution, good for you. if you want to call evolution a sham...be prepared to defend your case. Especially if you insist on broadcasting it here, because we are more than willing to educate you as per the ATS motto. don't issue a challenge on these forums if you aren't interested in being corrected.

a reply to: borntowatch

It's a legitimate question. If "macroevolution" is as impossible as you claim then you must have some proof (ie a biological mechanism) that shows this to be the truth.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: borntowatch

It's a legitimate question. If "macroevolution" is as impossible as you claim then you must have some proof (ie a biological mechanism) that shows this to be the truth.

Why is the burden of proof on him to provide a mechanism showing macro-evolution to be untrue when none of you have provided a mechanism showing that macro-evolution has ever happened in the first place?

a reply to: BlackManINC

Because neighbor, those who are claiming something is or is not true, are the ones who are beholden to show it is or is not so. Its how these things work. I know its hard for you and your ilk to have to actually do more than wave your sacred text about, but thems the breaks.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BlackManINC

Because neighbor, those who are claiming something is or is not true, are the ones who are beholden to show it is or is not so. Its how these things work. I know its hard for you and your ilk to have to actually do more than wave your sacred text about, but thems the breaks.

So I guess I'm just supposed to believe macro-evolution occurred because the church of Darwin says so? I know you are #ing with me right? Do you believe you are a scientist?