The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

[As I was saying]

We are still waiting for you to give a your scientific source that said the Earth was 200 million years old. What "atheists" are telling you this? Or did you just make it up?

Charles Darwin has minimal scientific education, no degree in science or any scientific credentials and borrowed much of his original theory from others. His unsubstantiated theory was actually quickly dismissed as fantasy by most of the scientific establishment and was only kept alive by outspoken atheists who began to promote it as an alternative to religious faith. So when it comes to scientific sources one must ask where is yours because using Darwin in any way, shape or form is far from scientific.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Charles Darwin has minimal scientific education, no degree in science or any scientific credentials and borrowed much of his original theory from others.

Charles Darwin was a naturalist. Synonyms for naturalist:
natural historian, life scientist, wildlife expert;
biologist, botanist,zoologist, ornithologist, entomologist, ecologist.
So you're wrong.

borrowed much of his original theory from others. .

Others as in plural? No. Just Patrick Matthew. Others understood the issues with natural selection. Darwin applied it to everything on the planet as an entire vision of life. So, you're wrong again.

His unsubstantiated theory was actually quickly dismissed as fantasy by most of the scientific establishment.

You mean the theory with an overwhelming amount of evidence in it's favor. So much evidence that if I put it all in front of you, it would take you centuries to read it all.

Heliocentrism was dismissed as fantasy too when it was first introduced . But we know those theories are correct.

and was only kept alive by outspoken atheists who began to promote it as an alternative to religious faith.

Which atheists? Care to name some? Evolution makes no claims for or against the existence of a God. You don't know what you're talking about.

So when it comes to scientific sources one must ask where is yours because using Darwin in any way, shape or form is far from scientific.

You don't know what science is and how it works.

For a theory to be accepted it must be observable, repeatable tests and make accurate predictions. Evolution does all of these things.

 

[Strathos]

My point is, a literal six day creation is incompatible with what we know to be true.

And?

 

[The Cadet]

Seems we have another atheist who is an expert on everyone else they have never met or talked to. May I suggest that you know nothing about what I believe although you give the impression you do. For example what do I believe about the second coming of Christ?

I don't know. I also made no statement of your thought processes, beyond the specific claims you made about atheists and atheism. At no point did I generalize about you or any group you belong to. You, however, made several broad, sweeping generalizations about atheists and atheism, none of which applied to me or any atheists I know of. Please don't do that.

Whatever translation you have and I have most of them including those in the original language, the essence of the message does not change.

And yet, every single translation has gone through human filters. No translation could possibly be the inspired word of god, as all of them are demonstrably wrong in numerous aspects (most notably, the existence of a world-wide flood within human history). At best, I could credit it with having been at some point divinely inspired, and some later translators taking an allegory far, far too literally. But to act like a book which you necessarily got from another human, printed by other humans based off of translations of ancient texts written by other humans is somehow ostensibly different from knowledge gotten by humans? @Heissonear's point just isn't reasonable. But it gets worse, because what he's referring to as "knowledge gotten by humans" (as opposed to "god's word") is actually knowledge accumulated by observing nature, knowledge that any one of us can find for ourselves. And if we can't trust our senses and interpretations when it comes to nature, why can we suddenly trust them when it comes to correctly reading and interpreting the bible?

if you gave some serious study of scripture rather than dabbling in passages that give you ammunition to criticise and carp about God, christianity and christians, you would be a much better person for it as you would start to understand the God of the unverse, rather than your jaundiced view which you have created for yourself so that you can ignore the truth.

I read the bible. I found the moral teachings therein abhorrent ("Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"?) and the factual claims wrong. I'm sure you know more about the bible than I do, but I know more than enough to conclude that the book was not written by an all-knowing, all-powerful, loving deity.

Charles Darwin has minimal scientific education, no degree in science or any scientific credentials and borrowed much of his original theory from others. His unsubstantiated theory was actually quickly dismissed as fantasy by most of the scientific establishment and was only kept alive by outspoken atheists who began to promote it as an alternative to religious faith.

Citation needed. His "unsubstantiated" theory became the scientific paradigm. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't think that most biologists were atheists back in the mid-1900s.

But even if it was rejected at first, that doesn't matter. You're trying to attack one of the most well-substantiated theories in science by going back in time to before we had the evidence to support it. That's totally unhelpful, though, because we have way more evidence now. It's like saying "I could beat up Mike Tyson when he was an infant".

 

[ecco]

When you life is motivated and controlled by cynicism, nothing is convincing evidence.

Do you really understand what you just wrote?


As I Was Saying is unconvinced by all the evidence supporting evolution. Therefore, As I Was Saying's life is controlled by cynicism.


Here...
http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
... is a list of over 13,000 members of the clergy who support evolution.

Are these clergy controlled by cynicism?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't believe you.

And this means what? I don't believe you either.

Here's your own paleontologist admitting you cant classify anything correctly.


Here's your Finches interbreeding right before your eyes.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/nature_galapago083531.html

But go ahead - keep telling the same lies you have always told. Refuse to admit that little mistake in classification and destroy your reputation even further. If you cant be trusted with the little things - you certainly can't be trusted with larger truths.

We both understand it has nothing to do with what you actually know to be true - but only what you want to be true - because like most evolutionists, the science actually means nothing to you. I understand, I really do. It's ok that you are afraid to look at the science and prefer the fantasy of Fairie Dust. Much easier to continue with false beliefs when you ignore the science you claim to follow.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When Einstein's relativity came along it improved and expanded Newtons' concepts of gravity.
When we learned about electrons inside an atom it improved and expanded our knowledge of the atom.
When we learned about about other galaxies it improved and expanded our knowledge of the universe.


You are hoping that something will come along that will destroy evolution when everything that has come along in 200 years has only improved and expanded our knowledge of evolution.

Yes everything has helped improve and expand our knowledge of evolution. That it is just plain wrong.

That you can't get anything classified correctly:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/nature_galapago083531.html


http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

That you can't even follow your own scientific definitions of what a species is. That you constantly ignore the natural world around you where you observe breeds within species - then list everything in the fossil record as separate species - without considering breeds at all.

Asian (breed) mates with African (breed) and produces an Afro-Asian (breed). No evolution through mutation was involved - and no transitory species exist between the three breeds. But you ignore how you observe variation occurs and pretend it happens differently in the past. You got no actual science - and you and I both understand this. All you have is Fairie Dust and incorrect classifications.

Which is why you will ignore that 5 of 12 of just the 12 major dinosaurs of North America were classified incorrectly.

Which is why you will ignore that those Finches have been interbreeding and producing fertile offspring since they arrived on the islands - and never underwent speciation in the first place.

You know it is indefensible - so ignoring the science is all you have left.

 

[The Cadet]

@Justatruthseeker

 

[Justatruthseeker]

@Justatruthseeker

Which means what? So he is going to admit they miss-classified 5 out of 12 in JUST the 12 he studied - but it doesn't affect anything. Lol, biggest PR attempt at damage control I have seen yet.

You had separate liniages for those incorrectly classified ones. Which means their entire claimed lineage is also incorrect. And we have not even begun on the millions of minor species - nor even began to consider breeds into the equation.

So the man that says they were wrong in classification is now saying incorrect classifications affect nothing. Then why bother to attempt to correct those classifications if he truly believes it will change nothing? If it changes nothing it is because you still refuse to admit that your entire classification system is based upon wrong beliefs of what constitutes a separate species.

Send me the link to that page - I'll discuss the issue with him personally - unless you are scared he wont be able to come up with a scientific reason to ignore his own findings?

And it's not just a dinosaur problem - or did you forget about the Finches and H erectus too, and all the other species you have classified incorrectly?

 

[ecco]

Yes everything has helped improve and expand our knowledge of evolution. That it is just plain wrong.

That you can't get anything classified correctly:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/nature_galapago083531.html


http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

That you can't even follow your own scientific definitions of what a species is. That you constantly ignore the natural world around you where you observe breeds within species - then list everything in the fossil record as separate species - without considering breeds at all.

Asian (breed) mates with African (breed) and produces an Afro-Asian (breed). No evolution through mutation was involved - and no transitory species exist between the three breeds. But you ignore how you observe variation occurs and pretend it happens differently in the past. You got no actual science - and you and I both understand this. All you have is Fairie Dust and incorrect classifications.

Which is why you will ignore that 5 of 12 of just the 12 major dinosaurs of North America were classified incorrectly.

Which is why you will ignore that those Finches have been interbreeding and producing fertile offspring since they arrived on the islands - and never underwent speciation in the first place.

You know it is indefensible - so ignoring the science is all you have left.

How do you know that 5 of 12 of just the 12 major dinosaurs of North America were classified incorrectly? No videos please, just your own words with some supporting evidence.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How do you know that 5 of 12 of just the 12 major dinosaurs of North America were classified incorrectly? No videos please, just your own words with some supporting evidence.

Are you making the claim that the science is not sound? That everything we understand of bone growth through medical studies is now also wrong?

Just look up bone growth studies - show me where his conclusions are not valid? Or do you really care nothing about the science, just Fairie Dust?

How do you know they were classified correctly to begin with? No videos please, just your own words with some supporting evidence? What science are you relying on to say they are separate species?

 

[ecco]

ecco:↑
How do you know that 5 of 12 of just the 12 major dinosaurs of North America were classified incorrectly? No videos please, just your own words with some supporting evidence.

Are you making the claim that the science is not sound? That everything we understand of bone growth through medical studies is now also wrong?

I asked "How do you know".

Just look up bone growth studies - show me where his conclusions are not valid? Or do you really care nothing about the science, just Fairie Dust?

I asked "How do you know".

How do you know they were classified correctly to begin with? No videos please, just your own words with some supporting evidence? What science are you relying on to say they are separate species?

I asked "How do you know".

You asserted "that 5 of 12 of just the 12 major dinosaurs of North America were classified incorrectly"

I asked "How do you know".

You didn't answer.

Please try to answer, just your own words with some supporting evidence.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Charles Darwin has minimal scientific education, no degree in science or any scientific credentials

Another lie. Charles Darwin's scientific education was excellent.
While at medical school at Edinburgh University, he studied marine biology with Dr. Robert Edmund Grant. Grant referred in publications to two of Darwin's original discoveries made in 1826; that the so-called "ova of Flustra" were in fact larvæ, and that the little globular bodies which had been supposed to be the young state of Fucus loreus were the egg-cases of the worm-like Pontobdella muricata.

At Cambridge University, Darwin studied under Revd John Stevens Henslow, Professor of Botany, and the Revds Adam Sedgwick and William Whewell, respectively professors of geology and mineralogy.

and borrowed much of his original theory from others.

In the preface to all editions of "The Origin of Species" following the second, there is a section entitled "AN HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE RECENT PROGRESS OF OPINION ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES." Darwin reviews, and contrasts prior work with his.

His unsubstantiated theory was actually quickly dismissed as fantasy by most of the scientific establishment

Two falsehoods; The theory of evolution is one of the most thoroughly substantiated in history; Darwin's work was quickly accepted. Like today there were a few well known holdouts who rejected both sciences of biology, and geology for religion.

and was only kept alive by outspoken atheists who began to promote it as an alternative to religious faith.

Interestingly, it was the religious professionals already distressed that their cherished "Noah's Flood" had been debunked by geology, who initially framed this as a religion versus science dispute. Thomas Huxley even coined the term "Agnostic" in an attempt to blunt the religious issue. By the 1900s, most Christian clergy had reconciled their faith with evolution. The principle rejection of both geology, and biology was in the Seventh Day Adventists. Their "prophetess" Ellen White had a trance induced revelation that caused her to say that the book of Genesis was exactly accurate. This idea was re-introduced into America by "Christian Reconstructionists" with the publication of "The Genesis Flood (1961)."
See;
Numbers, Ronald L.
2006 "The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism" Berkeley: University of California Press

Ingersoll, Julie J.
2015 “Building God’s Kingdom: Inside the world of Christian Reconstruction” Oxford University Press

So when it comes to scientific sources one must ask where is yours because using Darwin in any way, shape or form is far from scientific.

As we have seen, your opinions are unfounded in reality.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Here's your own paleontologist admitting you cant classify anything correctly.

That was a fun talk. What Jack Horner was saying was (of course) nothing like what you claimed. His entire point was how we correctly classify dinosaurs, and how this illustrated the self-correcting nature of scientific work.

 

[The Cadet]

Which means what? So he is going to admit they miss-classified 5 out of 12 in JUST the 12 he studied - but it doesn't affect anything. Lol, biggest PR attempt at damage control I have seen yet.

No, it's just that you have no understanding of palaeontology or ontogeny, the fields that relate to this. You completely fail to understand the nature of his research or what it means for biology as a whole.

You had separate liniages for those incorrectly classified ones. Which means their entire claimed lineage is also incorrect.

...No, it means that part of the lineage is incorrect. In the greater scheme of things, you could knock out quite a lot of the dinosaurs and have no effect on anything later on.

So the man that says they were wrong in classification is now saying incorrect classifications affect nothing.

He didn't say that, neither in as many words nor did he imply anything of the sort. These particular incorrect classifications are the result of an issue that does not apply to the vast majority of prehistoric species. They are a dinosaur-specific issue. And if you understood ontogeny, or even just the specific research you're appealing to, you would understand that.

And it's not just a dinosaur problem - or did you forget about the Finches and H erectus too, and all the other species you have classified incorrectly?

Oh, did we misclassify Homo Erectus? Huh. Interesting. I don't suppose it was because of bone structures and frills being different between adult and young hominids?

 

[Astrophile]

Yes I can and it is this. The ability of atheists to admit that someone who is not an atheist could be right is zero and having a perspective on something that differs from atheism is anathema to them. You can spend the next 100 years arguing that you are right and I am wrong but it will change nothing

You are the same person who wrote,

Dr. Ian Hutchinson .... believes that faith informs science by encouraging integrity and professional discipline, and by the knowledge that the laws governing the physical world were established by God and can be discovered through science.

He has no doubt that modern science is Christian in nature as it germinated in the work of pioneers like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Newton, Faraday and Maxwell all of whom were committed followers of the Christian Faith.

You are, of course, right in your assertion that many of the pioneers of science were Christians. I could add the names of Lord Kelvin, one of the greatest 19th-century physicists, Sir Arthur Eddington and Sir James Jeans, pioneers in the study of stellar structure, the Abbé Georges Lemaître, one of the first cosmologists, and the cosmologist Allan Sandage, who became a Christian fairly late in life. Even Charles Darwin was an agnostic rather than an atheist, and he was some sort of Christian when he first drafted his theory of evolution in the early 1840s.

The point is that what you are rejecting is not something atheistic but the science that was founded by Christians.

Although I do not share the religious beliefs of these scientists I honour them for their scientific work; so far as this work was inspired by their Christian faith I regard it as something to be set to the credit of Christianity, and at least something to balance the immense harm done by religious belief.

 

[Astrophile]

And so are you as you are saying that dogmatic atheism should be allowed to decide what other people think about what is truth and what isn't.

No, I am not saying anything of the sort. There ought to be freedom of religion; people should be free to come to their own conclusions about what is true. I choose to accept the scientific evidence; if the evidence supported creationism, I should be a creationist.

Also, most Christians accept the findings of science about biological evolution and the age of the Earth and of the universe. Many modern astronomers, geologists and biologists are themselves Christians. Perhaps you should discuss your beliefs with them rather than with atheists.

 

[As I was saying]

No, I am not saying anything of the sort. There ought to be freedom of religion; people should be free to come to their own conclusions about what is true. I choose to accept the scientific evidence; if the evidence supported creationism, I should be a creationist.

Also, most Christians accept the findings of science about biological evolution and the age of the Earth and of the universe. Many modern astronomers, geologists and biologists are themselves Christians. Perhaps you should discuss your beliefs with them rather than with atheists.

Rather a sweeping claim don't you think? "most Christians?" How many of the 2.1 billion Christians on earth have you questioned about their beliefs?

And if there should be freedom of religion and people should be free to come to their own conclusions about what is true, why is it that you spend all your time on here telling people that they have come to the wrong conclusion? That doesn't sound like letting people come to their own conclusions to me.

Oh, by the way, I didn't invite you to come on here and discuss [sic] your beliefs with us.

 

[As I was saying]

You are the same person who wrote,


You are, of course, right in your assertion that many of the pioneers of science were Christians. I could add the names of Lord Kelvin, one of the greatest 19th-century physicists, Sir Arthur Eddington and Sir James Jeans, pioneers in the study of stellar structure, the Abbé Georges Lemaître, one of the first cosmologists, and the cosmologist Allan Sandage, who became a Christian fairly late in life. Even Charles Darwin was an agnostic rather than an atheist, and he was some sort of Christian when he first drafted his theory of evolution in the early 1840s.

The point is that what you are rejecting is not something atheistic but the science that was founded by Christians.

Although I do not share the religious beliefs of these scientists I honour them for their scientific work; so far as this work was inspired by their Christian faith I regard it as something to be set to the credit of Christianity, and at least something to balance the immense harm done by religious belief.

And what harm is that?

 

[As I was saying]

As we have seen, your opinions are unfounded in reality.

As is yours because evolution is unreality.