Bible-Creation-Evolution

[Wiccan_Child]

Definition of troll:

''A person who posts outrageous, extraneous, controversial or off-topic messages to bait people to answer''

Sandwiches is a troll, who is claiming:

1. He knows how life started.
2. He knows howthe moon was created
3. He knows how the earth was created.

Militant Atheists like Sandwiches are trolls who think they have all the answers to everything, which kinds of contradicts the purpose of him posting here.

If he already knows everything, whey does he join a debating forum?

He's just posting stupid posts to wind people up.

First, if someone thinks they have the answer to a common problem, where better than a debating forum? People come here to discuss things; people ask questions, and get answers. I have a thread that has upwards of 4500 posts on that premise alone.

Further, sandwiches is not a troll simply because he ascribes to establish scientific knowledge (yes, knowledge). His posts are well-written and calm, even when talking to you. He has been here for a year and a half, has almost 4000 posts under his belt, and is both well-known and well-respected among this forum. He is not a troll.

Compare this to you: you joined us last week, and have immediately begun using classic trolling techniques that bely both a near-complete lack of relevant knowledge on your part ("Evolution is exactly the same, its not proven - its just another theory"), and a deliberate inflammatory soundbites ("Anything really pertaining to origins is religious ... so evolution in this sense could be seen as a religion", etc).
And yet you think you've identified a troll in our midsts, do you?

Methinks you're simply lashing out and making inflammatory remarks because he is systematically calling you out on your errors.

A mere hypothesis isn't a proven fact.

Obviously, as per scientific nomenclature. But it's not 'mere hypothesis', it's well-evidenced theory.

Sandwiches is claiming he knows (for certain) about everything and that scientists know all the answers about the origin of life (that evolution is a fact) and the origin of the moon. Re-read his post where he clearly stated this.

I've gone through all seven posts of his in this thread, and see no such claims to absolute knowledge. Perhaps you could cite the relevant post?

I see you are jumping to protect Atheists like Sndwiches who break rules (and are clear trolls) but would you do the same to creationists or Christians if they began to post extraneous comments? Probably not...

On the contrary, I have in the past. It's a common courtesy to reserve judgement about someone until you get to know them. Given the way you've attacked both me and sandwiches within your first week here, you're behaving very much like the boy who cried wolf.

Which is to say, like a child.

 

[1611AV]

There is no "creation theory" there is only a creation story. It is testable and has been falsified. It didn't happen that way. Evolution is not a theory that has anything to do with creation. You get all confused because your story just tosses everything into a few paragraphs and you're satisfied with that.

As to "in the beginning God" or "in the beginning dirt" no... there was no god in the beginning just as there is no god now. Dirt didn't show up until there were rocky planets a good few billion years into the lifetime of the universe.

Please don't try to conflate the belief in mythology with acceptance of science. If you want to believe that's how things happened, fine. But I won't let you get away with pretending the two are competing theories. They are not.

I didnt just say the are theory I said religions. Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory?

Also do you not see the foolishness in the following statement?

Dirt didn't show up until there were rocky planets a good few billion years into the lifetime of the universe.

 

[Greg1234]

You don't know what a theory is, do you? A theory is a hypothesis that's supported by all the known evidence. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. The theory explains the observed fact of evolution which is corroborated by not one but many lines of scientific inquiry. If any one found information that was contradictory the entire theory would have to be discarded or changed. Hasn't happened in 150 years.

We have found that random mutations are overly detrimental. We've found that adaptation is governed by an alternate intelligent mechanism. We've found that loss-of-function mutations and modification-of-function mutation dominate genomic alterations while any gain-of-function mutation would be purely compensatory. We have fossil evidence which depicts the sudden appearance of organisms springing up like a lawn rather than Darwin's tree. We have limits to adaptation with long distance no less of a speculation than saying your muscle growth is infinite, we have DNA being a genetic code and not merely a glob which is more subjective to the changes depicted by Darwin. We've found irreducibly complex structures. All these contradict chance and necessity giving rise to man. Darwin made his assertions. The only thing that was observed was adaptation. The rest was purely hypothetical and when subject to experimentation and shown inadequate, rendered true by virtue of already being called a theory and ultimately true by being materialistic.

Hardly. The only people who feel the need to try and contradict science are religionists with their ancient texts who are trying to prove them literally correct. Otherwise there would be no reason to try. If your god created you in his image he did it through evolution. You can deny it all you wish, you can pretend it's not happening and build museums to ignorance. It doesn't change the facts. Mankind evolved.

Actually, no. Putting all religious texts aside, the evidence is not in favor of Darwinian evolution. We put them back in for analysis not based on beastmen origin.

 

[sandwiches]

Definition of troll:

''A person who posts outrageous, extraneous, controversial or off-topic messages to bait people to answer''

Sandwiches is a troll, who is claiming:

1. He knows how life started.
2. He knows howthe moon was created
3. He knows how the earth was created.

Militant Atheists like Sandwiches are trolls who think they have all the answers to everything, which kinds of contradicts the purpose of him posting here.

If he already knows everything, whey does he join a debating forum?

He's just posting stupid posts to wind people up.



A mere hypothesis isn't a proven fact.

Sandwiches is claiming he knows (for certain) about everything and that scientists know all the answers about the origin of life (that evolution is a fact) and the origin of the moon. Re-read his post where he clearly stated this. I see you are jumping to protect Atheists like Sndwiches who break rules (and are clear trolls) but would you do the same to creationists or Christians if they began to post extraneous comments? Probably not...

I'm afraid those are strawmen. I never claimed such things. However, I was merely making the observation that just because you don't understand some things, doesn't mean that there aren't people who do, is all.

 

[sandwiches]

We have found that random mutations are overly detrimental. We've found that adaptation is governed by an alternate intelligent mechanism. We've found that loss-of-function mutations and modification-of-function mutation dominate genomic alterations while any gain-of-function mutation would be purely compensatory.

I could only go this far with your post due to time, I'm afraid but I just had to let you know that this is patently wrong. The vast majority of mutations are neutral, some are beneficial, and yes some are detrimental.

I know there are people who have mentioned to you the examples of such beneficial mutation such as:
"Genetic variant showing a positive interaction with beta-blocking agents with a beneficial influence on lipoprotein lipase activity, HDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels in coronary artery disease patients. The Ser447-stop substitution in the lipoprotein lipase gene. "

"Enhanced fMLP-stimulated chemotaxis in human neutrophils from individuals carrying the G protein beta3 subunit 825 T-allele."

"Polymorphisms in the coagulation factor VII gene and the risk of myocardial infarction."

Source

Now, let me ask you a question:
Do you believe that those mutations are not really beneficial, that they're not mutations at all, or do you concede that you were wrong?

 

[sandwiches]

DI see you are jumping to protect Atheists like Sndwiches who break rules (and are clear trolls) but would you do the same to creationists or Christians if they began to post extraneous comments? Probably not...

By the by, you should probably check our post history where we have defended theists from other atheists more than once when we think they're unnecessarily insulting or mocking.

AV1611VET, one of the theists with whom most atheists have butted heads more than once, can attest to this. I don't appreciate being called a troll and I don't think this serves the discourse in any way. So, let's try to get along and discuss the matter at hand instead of calling each other names, shall we?

 

[AV1611VET]

By the by, you should probably check our post history where we have defended theists from other atheists more than once when we think they're unnecessarily insulting or mocking.

AV1611VET, one of the theists with whom most atheists have butted heads more than once, can attest to this. I don't appreciate being called a troll and I don't think this serves the discourse in any way. So, let's try to get along and discuss the matter at hand instead of calling each other names, shall we?

Research, I'll concur with sandwiches on this.

Sandwiches, along with Split Rock, are two of the better ones I really enjoy talking to.

 

[1611AV]

Without deflection or dispute. Are there any Christians here that believe in evolution? If yes, can you explain how after reading the Bible, you came to that conclusion.

Example: Was it something the Bible said specifically or just your own opinion interpretation or belief. Your answer is not limited to the example.

I am very interested in a intelligent sincere answer to this question. Thank You.

 

[Phred]

Also do you not see the foolishness in the following statement?

Dirt didn't show up until there were rocky planets a good few billion years into the lifetime of the universe.

Obviously you have no clue why, do you? Google is your friend.

 

[Phred]

We have found that random mutations are overly detrimental.

Really? How did you find that out? By guessing?

We've found that adaptation is governed by an alternate intelligent mechanism.

Again, how did you find that out? Can you prove it? Offer evidence of retract your fallacious statement.

We've found that loss-of-function mutations and modification-of-function mutation dominate genomic alterations while any gain-of-function mutation would be purely compensatory.

Do you even know you're lying?

We have fossil evidence which depicts the sudden appearance of organisms springing up like a lawn rather than Darwin's tree.

No you don't.

We have limits to adaptation with long distance no less of a speculation than saying your muscle growth is infinite, we have DNA being a genetic code and not merely a glob which is more subjective to the changes depicted by Darwin.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

We've found irreducibly complex structures.

Which you can't name.

All these contradict chance and necessity giving rise to man.

If any one of them was even a little true.

Darwin made his assertions. The only thing that was observed was adaptation. The rest was purely hypothetical and when subject to experimentation and shown inadequate, rendered true by virtue of already being called a theory and ultimately true by being materialistic.

Since you utterly fail to show anything that isn't "materialistic" there's no reason to consider it. Everything else in the Theory of Evolution has been shown via experimentation and observation to be real. Look up Endogenous Retroviruses sometime.

Actually, no. Putting all religious texts aside, the evidence is not in favor of Darwinian evolution. We put them back in for analysis not based on beastmen origin.

Putting all religious texts aside the evidence is firmly in favor of evolution. Your "beastmen" nonsense is silly and will no longer be recognized.

 

[1611AV]

Obviously you have no clue why, do you? Google is your friend.

Actually wether right or wrong, I am the only one of us that has a answer
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

What is yours? In the beginning.... ?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is yours? In the beginning.... ?

More like: Once upon a time...

 

[Nathan Poe]

Actually wether right or wrong, I am the only one of us that has a answer
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It's an answer -- now show us how it's the correct one.

 

[Tiberius]

Evolution is a religion.

How so? does evolution have rites and ceremonies? Holy texts? Deities?

If evolution is a religion, then so is gravity.

I think his point is that since we can not observe how we were created, evolution is religious.

No one observed the building of the pyramids either. Is that also a religion?

-KH

The theories of origins—creation and evolution—are not observable nor are they testable. Thus, they are religious. If you were to ask a Christian how God was created, he or she cannot tell you. It must be taken by faith. If you were to ask an atheist where the matter originated for the Big Bang, he or she cannot tell you. It must also be taken by faith. Either you believe “in the beginning God” or you believe “in the beginning dirt.” Neither can be considered science; they both are religions.

Evolution is certainly testable. it can be used to make predictions. It is used to predict how an infection will respond to treatment. Have a look HERE for a whole list of other predictions made by evolution.

Creationism has no such predictions.

Militant Atheists like Sandwiches are trolls who think they have all the answers to everything, which kinds of contradicts the purpose of him posting here.

So a militant Christian is one of those people who kills gay people because it is against the bible, or kills abortion doctors. Militant Muslims fly planes into buildings.

And a militant atheist simply disagrees with you instead of keeping his opinion to himself.

I think you need to think again about the appropriatness of the word "militant" in there...

Actually wether right or wrong, I am the only one of us that has a answer
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

What is yours? In the beginning.... ?

I'd rather wait a while and have an answer I can be at least reasonably sure of than have an answer today that may be nothing but mythology.

 

[1611AV]

More like: Once upon a time...

Nothing became, something. The End.

 

[1611AV]

I'd rather wait a while and have an answer I can be at least reasonably sure of than have an answer today that may be nothing but mythology.

Takes faith to believe that one day you will have a answer. Therefore makes it religious.

 

[1611AV]

It's an answer -- now show us how it's the correct one.

Well until I see another answer the only answer is the correct one.

 

[sandwiches]

Well until I see another answer the only answer is the correct one.

There's more than one answer. Why do you dismiss the myriads of answers available?

 

[Research1]

How so? does evolution have rites and ceremonies? Holy texts? Deities?

Definition of religion from astandard dictionary -

''a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe''

The theory of evolution therefore is religious.

The cause, nature and purpose of the universe are religious or philosophical questions and not science because no one was there to observe when it was created and why, or how etc.

Hence science is limited on these issues. We don't know the age of the earth or universe, we just have reasonable estimations. For example no one knows what day and what second the universe was made, scientists can only guess by a million or billion year estimate. However, if someone was there - we would know the exact date, hence we have some very precise times for battles and historical events since recorded history.

Evolution therefore is religious/faith-based/assumption etc.

 

[Research1]

Everything else in the Theory of Evolution has been shown via experimentation and observation to be real.

So when has it been observed Humans evolved?

What did we evolve from?

Where did we evolve from?

Where you there then to observe?

Are you saying this transition is on camera/been observed?

You wonder why there are so many creationists or sceptics of evolution?

It's because evolution has never been observed, and to most people believing in something which is not observable is irrational. Do you believe in pixies, leprachuans?