Evolution is a Lie

[Skaloop]

So an angel would have to meet the specifications as calibrated in your paradigms and stored in your software?

Only if we're going to discuss whether it evolved or not.

The things I mentioned are critical parts of how evolution works. So yeah, if we're going to assess whether angels evolved, we'll first need to see whether they meet those criteria. If they do, then it would warrant further investigation. If they don't, then current evolutionary theory would not apply.

So an angel wouldn't have to meet any specifications; I'm just wondering if they do/did.

 

[AV1611VET]

More like an angel would have to fall under criteria determined by someone besides yourself.

Then I'll pass, as usual, on believing that we came from Jungle Jim.

Until evolutionists can examine an angel under current criteria for evolution, I'll withhold thinking they have enough evidence to make a proper decision in favor of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only if we're going to discuss whether it evolved or not.

The things I mentioned are critical parts of how evolution works. So yeah, if we're going to assess whether angels evolved, we'll first need to see whether they meet those criteria. If they do, then it would warrant further investigation. If they don't, then current evolutionary theory would not apply.

So an angel wouldn't have to meet any specifications; I'm just wondering if they do/did.

222

 

[Skaloop]

222

Dude, you're the one who brought up angels, you're the one that asked the question. I was just trying provide an answer to your question. Sorry if you don't like that answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dude, you're the one who brought up angels, you're the one that asked the question.

Evidently angels aren't taught in secular academia as exemptions to evolution.

 

[Skaloop]

Evidently angels aren't taught in secular academia as exemptions to evolution.

No, they aren't.

But that's not what you asked. You asked if they evolved. I merely asked for information that would allow a determination of whether they might have evolved or not. And probably the most crucial issue is whether they reproduce (amongst themselves) to produce new angels. Do they?

 

[AV1611VET]

And probably the most crucial issue is whether they reproduce (amongst themselves) to produce new angels. Do they?

Okay -- I asked the question incorrectly.

Let me reword it:

Did anything evolve into an angel?

My point, of course, is that abiogenesis & evolution both can take a hike.

Nothing evolved into angels, and angels themselves don't evolve.

In fact, where Creation is concerned, nothing evolved.

Put another way:

The very first thing that ever evolved, came well-after the Creation week.

 

[driewerf]

Did the angels evolve?

Do they exist?

 

[Tomatoman]

Okay -- I asked the question incorrectly.

Let me reword it:

Did anything evolve into an angel?

My point, of course, is that abiogenesis & evolution both can take a hike.

Nothing evolved into angels, and angels themselves don't evolve.

In fact, where Creation is concerned, nothing evolved.

Put another way:

The very first thing that ever evolved, came well-after the Creation week.

I'm beginning to think that a lot of creationist belief is tied to a peculiar view of their own sexual nature, probably as a result of the nonsense drummed into them at an early age about sin.

 

[Greg1234]

I'm beginning to think that a lot of creationist belief is tied to a peculiar view of their own sexual nature, probably as a result of the nonsense drummed into them at an early age about sin.

The evidence

 

[AV1611VET]

The evidence

 

[Nathan Poe]

Then I'll pass, as usual, on believing that we came from Jungle Jim.

Of course you will -- you can't stand the idea of not being able to define the world to your whim.

Until evolutionists can examine an angel under current criteria for evolution, I'll withhold thinking they have enough evidence to make a proper decision in favor of it.

And that has nothing to do with your own inability to produce an angel for examination?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Evidently angels aren't taught in secular academia as exemptions to evolution.

Neither are pixies, gnomes, or leprechauns -- care to guess why?

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither are pixies, gnomes, or leprechauns -- care to guess why?

I know why -- I've only been saying it for 5 years.

Science is myopic -- and it's easier to deny than assume, then have to spend money to hunt for something you can't find.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I know why -- I've only been saying it for 5 years.

Science is myopic -- and it's easier to deny than assume, then have to spend money to hunt for something you can't find.

As much as you'd love for scientists to spend their money to hunt for gnomes, they're not going to.

This is sad, AV -- even for you. You've tailor-made your religious beliefs to fit into your need for self-importance, and you reject evolutionary science because you can't do the same. You're desperately throwing every bit of mythology you can think of up in the air to avoid the humbling truth.

They're your angels -- you go find one. Scientists don't work for you, and don't care whether you believe them or not. Nobody does.

But if you want to infect this board with your self-serving superstition, and trick people into thinking that you have a point worth making, you're going to have to do a lot better than magic apples and angels that don't evolve. Too bad you can't.

 

[Tomatoman]

I don't know if Freud has an opinion on it, but creationists refusal to acknowledge their kinship with apes and mammals in particular, and the rest of the animal kingdom in general, seems to me to demonstrate an enormous blind spot about human sexual reproduction and its relation to our animal cousin's reproduction. Human sexual behaviour, sexual desire, sexual selection, and the way that social status is primarily about the chances of passing on our genes is so central to our existence, is in fact the reason for our existence, that not noticing that the whole process is just the same as the other animal's takes a bit of explaining. I can only account for this with some pretty heavy reprogramming at an early age, otherwise it is too obvious to ignore. Hence my comment.

 

[AV1611VET]

Human sexual behaviour, sexual desire, sexual selection, and the way that social status is primarily about the chances of passing on our genes is so central to our existence, is in fact the reason for our existence, that not noticing that the whole process is just the same as the other animal's takes a bit of explaining.

Then why is rape against the law?

If an xx Homo sapiens turns down an xy Homo sapiens' attempt to procreate, is the xxHs fighting the preservation of favoured races?

(I can't believe I'm discussing this.)

 

[Nathan Poe]

Then why is rape against the law?

If an xx Homo sapiens turns down an xy Homo sapiens' attempt to procreate, is the xxHs fighting the preservation of favoured races?

Because we as a society have found better ways of preserving the species.

(I can't believe I'm discussing this.)

Agreed -- feigning ignorance is your style, but this is a stretch even for you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because we as a society have found better ways of preserving the species.

Abortion doctors would disagree, would they not?

And I'm waiting to hear these 'better ways'.

And by 'found', did you mean 'invented' or 'discovered'?

 

[Split Rock]

Did the angels evolve?

Depends. Do angels have DNA (or some equivalent)? Do they reproduce? Is their DNA (or equivalent) subject to mutation? Do they face survival or reproductive pressures?

If the answer to those questions is yes, then I would expect that they would evolve. It the answer is no, then they don't necessarily evolve.

So an angel would have to meet the specifications as calibrated in your paradigms and stored in your software?

Skaloop gave you a serious and measured response to your question. In order to evolve, angels would indeed have to have certain properties that all life on earth share. Or are you setting up a "Did you stop beating your wife," type question?