If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[Speedwell]

we are talking about bad design here.

Right. It's not evidence of bad design or good design either.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

No, since that would mean I agreed with a man instead of God. Don't you know that God is incapable of error? IF God broke one of His own Laws, the Creation of the perfect 3rd Heaven, would cease to be. God gave the correct answer but did not see the need to add digits forever, since that is what pi is.

Saying pi is three is not precise, regardless of the spin you attempt to put on this. Just as the bible saying bats are birds is not precise.

 

[DogmaHunter]

i know since science is changeable and God's Truth doesn't need to change.

No, that is not the reason that your religious beliefs are not relevant in science.
Care to take a second guess as to why it is the case?

God's Truth AGREES in every way with every discovery of science.

If by "god's truth", you mean your rather bizar beliefs about extra-terrestials coming to earth on a magical space-ark, then I'll have to disagree with that.

Sure it is

Be serious: it isn't.
Your objection is rooted in your dogmatic religious beliefs and frankly, it's a bit sad that you aren't even willing to admit to that.

At least fundamentalists like Ken Ham and our very own AV have the courage to admit that they start with a dogmatic and unquestionable belief in the bible - to the point where if evidence of reality disagrees, it's the evidence of reality that must be wrong.

Godless men changed the name from descent with modification into the filthy word "evolution". Descent with modification within kinds is True and didn't need to be changed except to eliminate God from His own Creation.

See? Your objections are not rooted in science or evidence.
Instead, they are rooted in emotional objections as a direct result of a priori dogmatic religious beliefs.

False, since without Creationists, those who worship at the Altar of Evolution have nothing to hate.

I'm sorry to inform you, but the "hate" here is entirely one-sided and it doesn't find itself in the camp of mainstream science.

"evolutionists" are not the ones actively trying to demonize/dehumanize the other side by calling them "devil worshippers", guilty of spreading "satanic lies", accusing them of "hate" and "hating god", threatening them with "hell fire", etc etc etc.

Take a hint from the people that spell it out as "evilution" etc.

The most boring sites online are those who don't allow Creationists. I know. I've been there, tried, and gave up on the poor godless lot. They're dumber than Trump.

See? Dehumanizing, insulting, condescending,....

All accusatory and no substance.
Just fundamentalist religious beliefs.

 

[Aman777]

Saying pi is three is not precise, regardless of the spin you attempt to put on this. Just as the bible saying bats are birds is not precise.

False, since the classification system could be "flying creatures". Try again?

 

[Aman777]

No, that is not the reason that your religious beliefs are not relevant in science.
Care to take a second guess as to why it is the case?

Because godless scientists have rejected and eliminated God's Truth from their vocabulary? Can you give me ONE scientific Fact which disagrees with God's Truth?

If by "god's truth", you mean your rather bizar beliefs about extra-terrestials coming to earth on a magical space-ark, then I'll have to disagree with that.

The "Scoffers" of the last days won't believe that Adam's world was totally destroyed in the flood. This was written more than 2k years ago in ll Peter 3:3-6. Can you tell us WHY Adam's firmament/heaven was made the 2nd Day by God the Trinity Gen 1:6-8 and the present firmament was not made until the 3rd Day by Lord God the Son? Gen 2:4 Can you explain the 3rd Heaven of ll Cor. 12:2?

See? Your objections are not rooted in science or evidence.
Instead, they are rooted in emotional objections as a direct result of a priori dogmatic religious beliefs.

It's really hard to speak with those who reject God's Truth in favor of their own. They THINK they are smarter than God. I support what I write with the agreement of Scripture, science and history and NO unbeliever can refute me in any way? All they can do is disagree. Where's the Beef? waiting..........

 

[USincognito]

False, since the classification system could be "flying creatures". Try again?

Insects fly.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

False, since the classification system could be "flying creatures". Try again?

Thank you, you made my point perfectly.

 

[Aman777]

Insects fly.

Amen. A flying creature. Notice that it was Lord God/Jesus who physically made all the "common ancestors" of all living creatures. John 1:3 They descended with modifications within populations over time AND retained their animal-like traits until 11k years ago when the Ark arrived in Lake Van, Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat, and brought Adam's superior intelligence, which is like God's Gen 3:22 to this planet of the common ancestor of Apes. Human History records the event and EVERY trait of modern Humans is first exhibited there. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

 

[Aman777]

Thank you, you made my point perfectly.

Cover your point with aluminum wrap shaped like your head and no one will notice. LoL

 

[Gene2memE]

Human History records the event and EVERY trait of modern Humans is first exhibited there. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

You've been called out on this rubbish before - it's wrong, you should know it's wrong and you should stop repeating claims you've been shown are wrong. I'll repeat and expand on a list I made in July last year, researched just for you. All of these traits of modern humans precede 11,000 years ago:

Using basic stone tools: At least 4 million years ago
Using shaped stone tools: At least 3 million years ago
Using complex stone and wood tools: At least 2 million years ago
Controlling fire: At least 1.7 million years ago
Cooking food: At least 650,000 years ago
Wearing clothing: At least 500,000 years ago
Making art: At least 400,000 years ago
Making glues: At least 200,000 years ago
Making jewelry: At least 100,000 years ago
Using bedding: At least 70,000 years ago
Performing music: At least 45,000 years ago
Making rope: At least 40,000 years ago
Weaving: At least 36,000 years ago
Domesticating animals: At least 31,000 years ago
Living in permanent houses: At least 25,000 years ago
Horticulture: At least 23,000 years ago
Pottery: At least 20,000 years ago
Oil lamps: At least 20,000 years ago
Domesticating plants: At least 17,000 years ago
Dentistry: At least 14,000 years ago

You'll just hand wave it away, and continue to repeat the same thing, ad nauseaum. But, hopefully someone else learns something.

 

[Aman777]

You've been called out on this rubbish before - it's wrong, you should know it's wrong and you should stop repeating claims you've been shown are wrong. I'll repeat and expand on a list I made in July last year, researched just for you. All of these traits of modern humans precede 11,000 years ago:

Using basic stone tools: At least 4 million years ago
Using shaped stone tools: At least 3 million years ago
Using complex stone and wood tools: At least 2 million years ago
Controlling fire: At least 1.7 million years ago
Cooking food: At least 650,000 years ago
Wearing clothing: At least 500,000 years ago
Making art: At least 400,000 years ago
Making glues: At least 200,000 years ago
Making jewelry: At least 100,000 years ago
Using bedding: At least 70,000 years ago
Performing music: At least 45,000 years ago
Making rope: At least 40,000 years ago
Weaving: At least 36,000 years ago
Domesticating animals: At least 31,000 years ago
Living in permanent houses: At least 25,000 years ago
Horticulture: At least 23,000 years ago
Pottery: At least 20,000 years ago
Oil lamps: At least 20,000 years ago
Domesticating plants: At least 17,000 years ago
Dentistry: At least 14,000 years ago

You'll just hand wave it away, and continue to repeat the same thing, ad nauseaum. But, hopefully someone else learns something.

I have NO problem with your list since NONE of those listed fits the description of modern Humans. They fit the description of the sons of God (prehistoric people) who had been on planet Earth for Millions of years before the Ark arrived 11k years ago, according to History. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

The traits of Adam's descendants are listed in Genesis 4 and include farming, city building and smelting. Noah brought these traits to the present world when he brought his unborn grandsons with him on the Ark. What you have taught us are the godless views of men who worship at the Altar of the False ToE, while rejecting God's Truth. Try to do better.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

You've just mad because you can't understand Genesis. Your problem is self-imposed and self-curable. Ask God for help with your unbelief. He loves you no matter what your name is. Keep the faith.

I've asked God many things at many times, never once did I get an answer. Genesis doesn't comport with reality, so hardly the fault of anyone with critical faculties...

 

[Aman777]

I've asked God many things at many times, never once did I get an answer. Genesis doesn't comport with reality, so hardly the fault of anyone with critical faculties...

Unless you have been born again Spiritually, you remain dead to God. In order to be changed into an immortal being, you must believe that Jesus rose from the dead according to the Scriptures. 1Co 15:1 On your own, you don't believe that men rise from the dead, so you should ask the Father for the Gift of Faith to believe that Gospel. Eph 2:8 You will become a child of God and will inherit the perfect Heaven, eternally, IF you mean it. God Bless you

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Unless you have been born again Spiritually, you remain dead to God. In order to be changed into an immortal being, you must believe that Jesus rose from the dead according to the Scriptures. 1Co 15:1 On your own, you don't believe that men rise from the dead, so you should ask the Father for the Gift of Faith to believe that Gospel. Eph 2:8 You will become a child of God and will inherit the perfect Heaven, eternally, IF you mean it. God Bless you

Belief is not a choice. I can't force myself to believe in your God anymore than I could force a believe that Gravity doesn't affect me when I step off the top of a skyscraper. Any God worth the title would know that. I have to chalk this up to humans claiming to speak for your God and wanting your tythe - after all, the all-omnipotent creator of the Universe needs your money to help spread the word.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Good move. Although they are often quite skilled at the old two-step, forcing creationists to say that tens of thousands of trained experts are all either deluded, incompetent, or engaged in a monumental conspiracy reveals the profound implausibility of the creationist worldview.

Millions of Muslims manage to have a passing knowledge of the Bible yet somehow miss it's clear message due to their prior faith commitment ;-)

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Millions of Muslims manage to have a passing knowledge of the Bible yet somehow miss it's clear message due to their prior faith commitment ;-)

Well, I guess we'll have to go to a "Third Umpire" then - how about independently verifiable evidence? That's a pretty reliable "Third Umpire"...

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Well, I guess we'll have to go to a "Third Umpire" then - how about independently verifiable evidence? That's a pretty reliable "Third Umpire"...

Ok - I'm glad you asked... I did my first degree in evolutionary Biology and Biochemistry, from Darwin, to Dawkins. What you find when you study the subject is that there is the data and the interpretation.

What you get with your journals like Nature, National Geographic, New Scientist and Scientific American is the unspoken rule that only materialist explanations are allowed.

In addition, funding of science follows the same pattern. Have you ever wished to apply for a study grant based on creationist interpretations?

Regardless, I live the idea of going to the third umpire of the facts (not just our favourite ones). Being open to these facts has, over the years made me more convinced as a creationist as time has gone by.

One of my favourite pastimes is reading an article like " DNA found in Dinosaur Bones" and observing the way the writer finds some remarkable unknown mechanism whereby said DNA might be preserved for 100 million years contrary to all other observed physical laws - priceless!

 

[USincognito]

Ok - I'm glad you asked... I did my first degree in evolutionary Biology and Biochemistry, from Darwin, to Dawkins. What you find when you study the subject is that there is the data and the interpretation.

What you get with your journals like Nature, National Geographic, New Scientist and Scientific American is the unspoken rule that only materialist explanations are allowed.

In addition, funding of science follows the same pattern. Have you ever wished to apply for a study grant based on creationist interpretations?

Regardless, I live the idea of going to the third umpire of the facts (not just our favourite ones). Being open to these facts has, over the years made me more convinced as a creationist as time has gone by.

One of my favourite pastimes is reading an article like " DNA found in Dinosaur Bones" and observing the way the writer finds some remarkable unknown mechanism whereby said DNA might be preserved for 100 million years contrary to all other observed physical laws - priceless!

You never read an article about DNA being found in dinosaur bones.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Ok - I'm glad you asked... I did my first degree in evolutionary Biology and Biochemistry, from Darwin, to Dawkins. What you find when you study the subject is that there is the data and the interpretation.

Oh? Where did you do this course? What did you learn on this course? It doesn't sound like a recognised tertiary institution course if it has "from Darwin, to Dawkins" in the title... That said though, it'll be easy to work out if it was worth anything scientifically - for example, How do you explain ERVs? by what mechanisms does speciation occur and what does the Theory of Evolution have to say about abiogenesis?

What you get with your journals like Nature, National Geographic, New Scientist and Scientific American is the unspoken rule that only materialist explanations are allowed.

No, just that to get meaningful results from the material, we've only ever been able to do that by assuming there's a material cause for it. This is why we've made the progress we have. This says absolutely nothing about the supernatural let alone what it is or isn't.

In addition, funding of science follows the same pattern. Have you ever wished to apply for a study grant based on creationist interpretations?

Again, because any investment in the sciences has demonstrably resulted in useful and/or progressive results. Could you name ANY science based on Creationism for a start, let alone that returns any saleable product? For example, the sciences have given us medical and technological know-how, resource location and extraction, food production and pretty much everything that you enjoy today, even this medium of communication and device connected to it to talk to me on. Creationism has led to nothing of value outside your religion.

Regardless, I live the idea of going to the third umpire of the facts (not just our favourite ones). Being open to these facts has, over the years made me more convinced as a creationist as time has gone by.

Then you have a failure of epistemology or scientific understanding (I'd get my money back on that degree if I were you...)

One of my favourite pastimes is reading an article like " DNA found in Dinosaur Bones" and observing the way the writer finds some remarkable unknown mechanism whereby said DNA might be preserved for 100 million years contrary to all other observed physical laws - priceless!

And here's an excellent time to employ your skills in Science, Tell me all about this alleged DNA and the observed physical laws that have been violated? This WILL be priceless... Feel free to quote the article too, btw.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@USincognito

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ion-year-old-dinosaur-protein-milestone-paper

@Bugeyedcreepy

I did a regular BSc in Biology and Biochemistry, specialising in evolution, tropical medicine and cell biology in my final year. The "Darwin to Dawkins" part was my literary flourish. Talking technical / down to me really won't work (I'm sure that was not your intention though ;-)

Take your own view, choose to emphasise the significance of some evidences over others if you like. In the end, we each decide who or what to put our trust in.