Evolution cannot explain Origins

[speakout]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5lMMeYhE_H8

Evolution relies on abiogenesis or spontaneous generation before yspecies can evolve.

 

[HannahBanana]

Why do you expect evolution to be able to explain the origins of life when evolution explains something completely different?

 

[speakout]

Well that is exactly my point, Evolution can never replace Creation.

 

[HannahBanana]

Well that is exactly my point, Evolution can never replace Creation.

So just because evolution doesn't explain as much as creation does, that somehow means that evolution isn't as true as creation is?

Tell me, how much evidence does creation have? Because evolution has plenty: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.

 

[ryanb6]

Tell me, how much evidence does creation have?

So you think God should give you everything you need to know about creation?

 

[HannahBanana]

So you think God should give you everything you need to know about creation?

Yes, because believing in things without proof is usually a bad idea.

 

[speakout]

There is no evidence of evolution, there have been lies like the Piltdown man etc.

What is the proof of chemical evolution?

 

[HannahBanana]

There is no evidence of evolution, there have been lies like the Piltdown man etc.

What is the proof of chemical evolution?

Did you even look at the site I linked to?

Oh, and there is no such thing as "chemical evolution."

 

[ryanb6]

Yes, because believing in things without proof is usually a bad idea.

Well when you know God, it becomes a different story. It's no longer a bad idea.

 

[HannahBanana]

Well when you know God, it becomes a different story. It's not longer a bad idea.

No, it still is a bad idea. It makes you more susceptible to accepting other things without proof, no matter how disgusting/bad/wrong those things are.

 

[ryanb6]

No, it still is a bad idea. It makes you more susceptible to accepting other things without proof, no matter how disgusting/bad/wrong those things are.

You would have to prove how it would make someone more susceptible to accepting other things before you just make the statement. I said know God. I didn't say think He exists or something.

 

[HannahBanana]

You would have to prove how it would make someone more susceptible to accepting other things before you just make the statement. I said know God. I didn't say think He exists or something.

What about all of the wars that have been started in the name of Christianity? Obviously, the Christians that started those wars were easily convinced that whoever they were fighting against was evil.

Also, how can you "know" an invisible being? That makes no sense at all.

 

[ryanb6]

What about all of the wars that have been started in the name of Christianity?

Are they biblical? Which ones?

Obviously, the Christians that started those wars were easily convinced that whoever they were fighting against was evil.

Saying, "I'm a Christian" doesn't make you one. Just look around America for the reality of that.

Also, how can you "know" an invisible being? That makes no sense at all.

I don't expect it to make sense to you.

Anyway you haven't proven that it makes anyone more prone to believing things that aren't true.

 

[HannahBanana]

Are they biblical? Which ones?

Saying, "I'm a Christian" doesn't make you one. Just look around America for the reality of that.

I don't expect it to make sense to you.

You're trying to use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy on me? Really?

And if it doesn't make sense to me, how can it make sense to you?

 

[ryanb6]

You're trying to use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy on me? Really?

Um no. I'm using the bible on you. Nice try though.

And if it doesn't make sense to me, how can it make sense to you?

Is that like an insult or something? How can I have something you don't have? You should be able to answer this one on your own.

 

[HannahBanana]

Um no. I'm using the bible on you. Nice try though.

Is that like an insult or something? How can I have something you don't have? You should be able to answer this one on your own.

Do you even know what the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is? It seems like you don't.

 

[pgp_protector]

.

 

[ryanb6]

Do you even know what the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is? It seems like you don't.

More attacks without any substance. I said my view was with scripture. Let's leave it at that.

 

[HannahBanana]

More attacks without any substance. I said my view was with scripture. Let's leave it at that.

How is that an attack? It honestly seems like you don't know what the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is. And my point does have substance, since you committed that logical fallacy a few posts ago.

 

[ryanb6]

How is that an attack? It honestly seems like you don't know what the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is.

Lol ok. You just don't get it. I said that it doesn't work here. I'm using scripture against you and then you argue by saying I don't know what it is.

And my point does have substance, since you committed that logical fallacy a few posts ago.

Proof?