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.
Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Evolutionism...all impossible.
Since you are atheist - would you mind if we visited step 4 in that list starting with statements by well-known diehard-atheists such as Leonard Susskind the father of string theory and Martin Reese a nobel prize winning cosmologist and father of multiverse mythology??
Actually WATCH the video, please. Then respond to it.
Abiogenesis is of course "impossible" -- it cannot even be contrived in the Lab.
Do evangelicals that are about to take a blind-leap off the cliff into the depths of evolutionism - consider such facts before they leap?
Abiogenesis is not evolution.
Any salient point in evolutionism that is testable -- is not "evolution"
No testable salient point in it - is.
A few non-T.E. Evangelicals noticed that already.
No, how do you even get that from my post? I was stating that you made a post that harmed your position.Is it the "current opinion" of atheists on this board that Bible believing Christians who accept the Bible 7 day creation week (As even atheists such as James Barr describes it) -- are viewing atheist concepts of origins to be the best and most logical explanation for origins??
If that has somehow come about on this area of the board - can someone explain how that happened??
I would have presumed that they understood the opposite of that to be true.
We are talking about "observations in nature" that dictate "For a designer" and the fact that even these atheist sources admit to it.
Now if you want to argue that "a designer" is not at all an issue for atheists and T.E. when it comes to blind faith evolutionism - well maybe we do need to have that discussion.
If on the other hand you want a well known atheist biologist such as Collin Patterson talking about the "religious" nature of the argument for evolutionism. We can discuss that as well, since the title of this thread deals with "evangelicals" looking at blind faith evolutionism and deciding to trade-in their Bible on the subject of origins for a more atheist-centric understanding of that doctrine.
in Christ,
Bob
Sir, in your 4 things, not one was fact. You had bibles being thrown out windows. Also, Ad hominems are bad, no matter who uses them. Call people out on it; it makes for bad debates. Just because you don't call people out on it, doesn't mean you can use it as a legitimate tactic.Are you looking for an argument against atheism? Against evolutionism?
This thread is about the process that some "evangelical" apparently chose.
Since you are atheist - would you mind if we visited step 4 in that list starting with statements by well-known diehard-atheists such as Leonard Susskind the father of string theory and Martin Reese a nobel prize winning cosmologist and father of multiverse mythology??
As I said before - I would never discount proclivity for name-calling and ad hominem attacks out of the favorite resort list for T.E and Atheism. I am not trying to discount the frequency for such options for those groups. Certainly they do enjoy that.
But I was talking about actual facts.
That it true.
Thanks for sharing that point. Always good to get active participation.
Abiogenesis is of course "impossible" -- it cannot even be contrived in the Lab.
Do evangelicals that are about to take a blind-leap off the cliff into the depths of evolutionism - consider such facts before they leap?
Would be nice to ask that of the OP illustration.
in Christ,
Bob
And not one of them demonstrating the salient mechanism that would differentiate evolution from minor mutation
If you found evidence of that, it would be extraordinary, considering the fact that eukaryotes probably didn't evolve directly from prokaryotes., not one showing prokaryotes can ever in all of time become eukaryotes.
I have already had my say on the prokaryote to eukaryote bit, but here is some horse evolution http://static.wixstatic.com/media/7....jpg_srz_480_599_85_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srzWoW no batcteria crossing over to the amoeba milestone. Not one showing how to even get the bacteria in the first place. Not one showing how the single celled animal becomes a horse. etc.
There is no "next level", that isn't how evolution works. As for genus transitions being observed in living creatures, we have seen that, look it up, there are lizard and bird examples for the people who continuously have issues with bacteria for no apparent reason. In many animals, evolution is too slow to observe huge changes within a human lifetime, but much like how I can't show you how the rocky mountains are growing in terms of miles, most of the time, you aren't going to see fast, drastic change. We can, however, show "changes in inches" most of the time. But for the impatient and demanding, there are examples of pretty fast evolution, if you bother to look them up.And of course - they never show animals actually "evolving" to the next level. No matter how many zillions of generations of bacteria to have it "shown" that a prokaryote becomes a eukaryote.
There isn't much of a difference, other than the fact that evolution includes more than mutations.
If you found evidence of that, it would be extraordinary, considering the fact that eukaryotes probably didn't evolve directly from prokaryotes. .
As your own Isaac Asimov notes "the evolution from gas to human brain requires a massive DECREASE in entropy" over time.
“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?
I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”
As your own Isaac Asimov notes "the evolution from gas to human brain requires a massive DECREASE in entropy" over time.
And of course there are those who would argue that it is a massive decrease at the "local area" that is "ALL of Planet EARTH"!!l
However "imagining" that gas and dust contain inherent properties to eventually "self organize" into a human brain -- into Einstein -- is the mythology of blind faith evolutionism.
Y'wanna try again? Also, y'wanna explain why you're still touting this ancient quote when Patterson's clarification was issued more than 30 years ago?
And not one of them demonstrating the salient mechanism that would differentiate evolution from minor mutation, not one showing prokaryotes can ever in all of time become eukaryotes.
from your link "In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin"-- the take the "miracle" as Gratis -- the gift in the mind of the reader - given to blind faith evolutionism from the very start!
And of course - they never show animals actually "evolving" to the next level. No matter how many zillions of generations of bacteria to have it "shown" that a prokaryote becomes a eukaryote.
"probably didn't"??
That is pretty funny - because "evolution probably didn't happen at all"
As your own Isaac Asimov notes "the evolution from gas to human brain requires a massive DECREASE in entropy" over time.
And of course there are those who would argue that it is a massive decrease at the "local area" that is "ALL of Planet EARTH"!!l
However "imagining" that gas and dust contain inherent properties to eventually "self organize" into a human brain -- into Einstein -- is the mythology of blind faith evolutionism.
Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution) in a talk given at the American Museum of Natural History 1981
--------------------- Patterson die-hard evolutionist and atheist said -
“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?
I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”
"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.
"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff fortwenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...
It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...
about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."
==================================
As frank as that particular atheist scientist is on the subject - apparently there is at least one evangelical willing to leap right off a cliff in service to blind-faith-evolutionism -- "no matter what".
But I find it "instructive" that most evangelicals don't rush off that cliff so easily.
"probably didn't"??
....As your own Isaac Asimov notes "the evolution from gas to human brain requires a massive DECREASE in entropy" over time.....
Abiogenesis is of course "impossible" -- it cannot even be contrived in the Lab.
Lab.Do evangelicals that are about to take a blind-leap off the cliff into the depths of evolutionism - consider such facts before they leap?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?