-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Recommended educational Youtube channels for the evidence of evolution
- Thread starter In situ
- Start date
I hear you, Son of Man., but I definitely do not agree. The attitude you take is precisely the one taken by those who twisted Christianity into a religion of ignorance, fear, and oppression, all down through the ages. You and you have a monopoly on God's truth, and so anyone who even thinks of disagreeing with you in the slightest is condemned to Hell. Well, nuts to that. The real issue here is that you have slapped together some kind of poorly structured homespun faith, out of your own imagination. Way down deep inside you know this, you know your homemade faith is truly 8inferior and inadequate. So, course you don't want challenged. You know that would expose what a big phony you are.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
I skipped around a bit due to the idiotic overly dramatic music and the narrator used the moronic "polonium halos" claim. Here is a hint, when you have "evidence" make sure that it does not start off with an argument that was refuted almost immediate.
Is there anything in that video worth watching at all? But I must thank justlookinla for confirming that he knows nothing of science.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
Hey, I'm just joining the club.....you know the one where someone posts a link and then claims it's evidence. You obviously don't understand what you're watching.
Upvote
0
OK, I spent time checking out Tony Reed. I recommend every one carefully checking out these online apologists. I have spend considerable time so doing, from Slick to Holding, to Missler, to Ham, etc. My conclusion is that they are essentially a bunch of phonies, sporting false credentials, spewing out nothing but ignorance. I do not accept any of these as truly Christian, let alone honest. I took a look at this Reed fellow. Same sad story. I don't know if any if saw this one or not, but I found one where he tries to present a historical chronology of how Christianity has influenced education down though the ages. A C student in freshman church history would easily spot error after error there. If you want him, you can have him. To me, he is just another in a long line of unqualified devious online apologists.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
He is not an apologist. Apologists are people that apologize for the errors in the Bible. And I don't think that he ever claimed to be a Christian.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
But you keep forgetting that you have no idea what is or is not evidence. I am still ready to help you on that concept. These are educational videos. They may or may not mention the evidence that supports them, many of them do. But again, since you don't understand the concept of evidence, those examples will go right over your head.
I would think that you would want to know what is and what is no evidence so that you could be a better debater.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
I understand you've done nothing but offer worthless links supposing them to be evidence based on the scientific method for the faith-based view of Darwinist 'creationism'. Nobody's buying it.
Upvote
0
I find at least three lines of scientific evidence that point to the fact the more complex life forms evolved from the most simple. Take ourselves. Don't we start out that way, just a sperm and an egg, and go from there? Now, unless you are arrogant enough to assume the laws of nature stop and your womb, then what happens there is a representation of laws of nature working elsewhere. The fossil record, which is like a time capsule, snapshots frozen in stone, clearly indicate that the further back you go, the simpler life becomes.
Pushed back far enough, and your at a point in earth history when absolutely nothing we call life existed, so a period even simpler yet. Now unless you believe in creation ex nihilo, and I sure don't, then when life first appeared, it did out of this far simpler world. Of course, some will ask how it is possible for the living to come from the nonliving. In point of fact, there is no hard-and-fast dividing line between the living and the nonliving, the organic and the inorganic. If you don't believe me, check with any chemistry professor, and he or she will tell you the distinction between inorganics and organic chemistry is largely a matter of the division of labor in teaching, rather than the actual subject matter. Also, much depends on how you view the relationship of mind to matter. I believe mind and matter are one. All things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of souls. All matter is living, to begin with.
Pushed back far enough, and your at a point in earth history when absolutely nothing we call life existed, so a period even simpler yet. Now unless you believe in creation ex nihilo, and I sure don't, then when life first appeared, it did out of this far simpler world. Of course, some will ask how it is possible for the living to come from the nonliving. In point of fact, there is no hard-and-fast dividing line between the living and the nonliving, the organic and the inorganic. If you don't believe me, check with any chemistry professor, and he or she will tell you the distinction between inorganics and organic chemistry is largely a matter of the division of labor in teaching, rather than the actual subject matter. Also, much depends on how you view the relationship of mind to matter. I believe mind and matter are one. All things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of souls. All matter is living, to begin with.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Quite the opposite. No one is believing your nonsense and they are laughing at your cowardice.
Why does the mere concept of scientific evidence scare you so much?
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
Why do you claim worthless links are evidence, based on the scientific method?
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Please try to pay attention. You will never learn if you don't do that.
Upvote
0
You are funny with your denial - do you really deny well established factual observation and claim they do not exists? Are you really that unresonable? If you are not, then you must admit that the observation Walter pointed out in embryonic evidence for evolution trivially support the theory of evolution. How these observation could support Creation or Intelligent Design is a mystery for me, please explain.
Upvote
0
The first step is to stop act like a complete idiot and stop deny factual observation. Otherwise all you say is just empty words... The next step is for you to realize that some people might knows things that you do not know - in other words you need to recognize when you do not know and need to learn more. You fail at this point. Once own ingorance is not a measurement or base line for evaluating the validity of a claim - and you repete this misstake all the time.
Upvote
0
That is fine with me. However, then you are not in a position to tell other that disagree with you that they might wrong - nor are you in position to say that you are correct. It is your beliefs, and whatever your beliefs are I am not to argue with you, but this means you have disqualified yourself for any further discussion in life science.
Upvote
0
I have no idea what you are talking about, and wonder why you continue to demand that my OP must confirm to a certain specific question you have?
Do you understand that by doing so you do not give a very intelligent impression on me?
Upvote
0
In contrats to what - magic?
What you claim to be a "Darwinist view of evolution" has never been biologist view of evolution.
What is claimed by biologist is the following; human are produced by humans, because only human can make humans. It is a very simple observational fact, however this fact was a great mystery before Darwin, because if an organisms can only procreate an organisms of its own kind then how come that we do observe such a big diversity of life?
Before Darwin, nobody could explain why, say, a Golden Retriever could not give birth to an Irish Setter. We know they are both dogs, but still none of them could give birth to the other kind of dog. Why this was the case was a mystery for people before Darwin.
However, Darwin was the one that explained this mystery.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No, you are wrong. You are trying to get an anwers to a question that is not addressed by the OP. Why you do this I do not know. But I know I made the OP and I think I have a final say in what and what not the OP is supposed to be about.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
