Evolution is Not Atheistic

[Subduction Zone]

We were told by Christopher Hitchens that life had been around for 4.5 billion years.

If Hitchens said that he was mistaken. Life may have appeared as early as 3.8 billion years ago, but there is no evidence that it was here that early. But this sort of mistake is not serious. Biology and geology were not Hitchens' areas of expertise.

 

[As I was saying]

You have that wrong, fundies do not prefer what God says they prefer what people wrote who said it came from God, fundies don't believe God they believe people.
Who told people about God? people, who told people what God said? people, who do you believe? people, is there a God? who knows? all we have is the words of people who tell us there are Gods, if you're happy to believe people then go for it, I'm not.
It goes even deeper than that because people of one faith do not believe people of other faiths which means people are only prepared to believe the people they want to believe.

Another non fundie that likes to show us how little he knows about God and his word. The Word tell us that people wrote as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Who actually put pen on paper is irrelevant. What is relevant is where the words came from and the bible makes it clear the Holy Spirit was the source.

I realise as a non fundie that is a concept you are unable to grasp. Be as that may, it does not alter the fact.

In addition, true believers believe what the Holy Spirit says, not what he said, she said so they choose not to believe he said she said as the Holy Spirit is a much more reliable source as the scripture points out that he leads us into all truth.

Once again, I realise that you are trying to understand the infinite with your finite mind but it won't work. To understand God you need the mind of Christ, but...you are your own worst enemy in that regard as the only thing you believe is you.

Compared to all the resouces of heaven and the mind of Christ, what you know is not much more than a snowflake on a mountain of snow.

 

[As I was saying]

If Hitchens said that he was mistaken. Life may have appeared as early as 3.8 billion years ago, but there is no evidence that it was here that early. But this sort of mistake is not serious. Biology and geology were not Hitchens' areas of expertise.

And you are mistaken as I have heard several atheists say that life has been around 4.5 billion years.

 

[As I was saying]

Some have a faith-based belief in a willy-nilly creation with the human life form being just another product of mass confusion (Darwinists) and some believe that creation is purposeful and humans are the highest form of life created by God (Theists).

One cannot accurately say that 'Christians believe in evolution' without pointing out the kind of evolution being embraced, theistic or non-theistic, macro or micro. There are huge differences in implications in the various views.

They don't know that answer to that idea as they don't know much about evolution, full stop. All they seem to ever do is criticise those that believe in God, which has nothing to do with evolution or repeat ad infinitum what another atheist has said.

 

[As I was saying]

You can say that all you like. Doesn't make it true.

Non sequitur

 

[lasthero]

And you are mistaken as I have heard several atheists say that life has been around 4.5 billion years.

You probably misunderstood what he said.

The EARTH is about 4.54 billion years old, but no one ever said that life's been here since the beginning. It's unknown exactly when life arose, but the earliest evidence we can find of it about 3.7 billio .

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you are mistaken as I have heard several atheists say that life has been around 4.5 billion years.

Sorry, at best you misunderstood them. Seriously, if this was true you could support it with links. Give me a link that shows anyone of any authority making this claim. If you can't you are just spewing nonsense.

 

[crjmurray]

And you are mistaken as I have heard several atheists say that life has been around 4.5 billion years.

Oh hey! You're back! Yeah, you didn't hear anybody say that. You weren't able to show that any source said that before and you won't be able to do so now! Welcome to the indefensible position of a fundie!

 

[Armoured]

Non sequitur

You can say that all you like. Doesn't make it true.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, but that includes the concept you cannot accept -MACRO-. You even skipped responding to that part of my post.

All macro evolution isn't equal, thus the faith-based theistic view as contrasted with the faith-based Darwinist view.

Your creationist beliefs. And your refusal to accept that christians accept macro evolution.

Christians do not accept Godless Darwinist evolution. Macro isn't the issue.

Didn't answer. Hmm. Interesting. It's just that some people who take Genesis literally, believe in creationism and geocentricity. I was wondering just where you draw the line on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

This is an evolution forum. What does geocentricity have anything to do with the various views of evolution?

 

[ecco]

You probably misunderstood what he said. It's unknown exactly when life arose, but the earliest evidence we can find of it about 3.7 billion .

You say 3,700,000,000. Someone else says 3,800,000,000. You silly atheists. The answer is 6,000!


Yes, kiddies, the above was sarcasm.

 

[ecco]

All macro evolution isn't equal, thus the faith-based theistic view as contrasted with the faith-based Darwinist view.

Wow! Progress! You finally admitted some christians believe in macro evolution. You are well on your way to the 21st Century.

Next, you will have to admit that the christians who believe in evolution obviously do not take a literal reading of Genesis. However, you do take Genesis literally. How is it that your views of scripture are so different from theirs?

Christians do not accept Godless Darwinist evolution. Macro isn't the issue.

Macro has been the issue with you. See above.

Didn't answer. Hmm. Interesting. It's just that some people who take Genesis literally, believe in creationism and geocentricity. I was wondering just where you draw the line on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

This is an evolution forum. What does geocentricity have anything to do with the various views of evolution?

It really does have everything to do with evolution. People, like yourself, who are creationists disbelieve evolution because you take a literal reading of Genesis. Some people who take a literal reading of Genesis also still believe in Geocentricity. I was just wondering how literally you read Genesis.

You still haven't answered. Is this another view you are embarrassed by?

 

[justlookinla]

Wow! Progress! You finally admitted some christians believe in macro evolution. You are well on your way to the 21st Century.

Of course. See www.biologos.org for an example of those who embrace theistic macro evolution.

Next, you will have to admit that the christians who believe in evolution obviously do not take a literal reading of Genesis. However, you do take Genesis literally. How is it that your views of scripture are so different from theirs?

When you say "evolution", are you speaking of theistic macro evolution, Godless Darwinist evolution, micro evolution, evolution with intelligent design....identify what view of evolution you're speaking of.

My view is that God is creator. I'm not going to argue about the details.

Macro has been the issue with you. See above.

Godless is the issue with me. See above.

It really does have everything to do with evolution. People, like yourself, who are creationists disbelieve evolution because you take a literal reading of Genesis. Some people who take a literal reading of Genesis also still believe in Geocentricity. I was just wondering how literally you read Genesis.

You still haven't answered. Is this another view you are embarrassed by?

Nothing to answer. The question concerning geocentricity isn't about evolution (whatever form of evolution you personally embrace).

 

[As I was saying]

You can say that all you like. Doesn't make it true.

Non sequitur

 

[As I was saying]

Oh hey! You're back! Yeah, you didn't hear anybody say that. You weren't able to show that any source said that before and you won't be able to do so now! Welcome to the indefensible position of a fundie!

No of course I didn't. if an atheist says so then it must be right. After all, atheists are never wrong are they.

Apologies moderator for the sarcasm but such a childish comment deserves no better.

I am waiting for the fundie atheists who said most christians believe in evolution to show his source for such a wild and preposterous claim. Welcome to the indefensible position of a fundie atheist!!

 

[bhsmte]

No of course I didn't. if an atheist says so then it must be right. After all, atheists are never wrong are they.

Apologies moderator for the sarcasm but such a childish comment deserves no better.

I am waiting for the fundie atheists who said most christians believe in evolution to show his source for such a wild and preposterous claim. Welcome to the indefensible position of a fundie atheist!!

Here you go.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

 

[crjmurray]

No of course I didn't. if an atheist says so then it must be right. After all, atheists are never wrong are they.

Apologies moderator for the sarcasm but such a childish comment deserves no better.

I am waiting for the fundie atheists who said most christians believe in evolution to show his source for such a wild and preposterous claim. Welcome to the indefensible position of a fundie atheist!!

That didn't take long did it.

 

[As I was saying]

Sorry, at best you misunderstood them. Seriously, if this was true you could support it with links. Give me a link that shows anyone of any authority making this claim. If you can't you are just spewing nonsense.

Yes of course. I forgot that atheists are never wrong. I must tell Christopher Hitchens that he was wrong because Subduction Zone says he was. What would Christopher know. After all he is one of the most quoted atheists on the planet (when he was alive of course). And here is me thinking that he knew what he was talking about. Just shows that you can't believe a word that an atheist says.

Judging by the comments here from atheists I can believe what one atheist told me that no one atheist speaks for another. So if an atheist says the world was 10 years old that is right and if another one says that is 10 million years old that is right and if another says that it was 10 billion years old that is right.

And if an atheist said as he did on TV we all came from a sand worm that is right. And if another one as David Attenborough said we all descended from a fish that must be right and if another one said we descended from an amoeba in a pond that must be right.

No wonder people think that evolution is a fairy story.

 

[As I was saying]

That didn't take long did it.

What didn't?

 

[As I was saying]

You probably misunderstood what he said.

The EARTH is about 4.54 billion years old, but no one ever said that life's been here since the beginning. It's unknown exactly when life arose, but the earliest evidence we can find of it about 3.7 billio .

What evidence? You atheists keep rabbiting on about providing evidence, so provide some. And whilst you are at it, tell me how life began, because unless you know the answer to that question you can't prove a thing about evolution.