Why do you feel a NEED for theistic evolution?

[jJIM THINNSEN]

That's evolution, yes. Change in allele frequency in a population over time. He admits that. He just doesn't think it accounts for common descent. As he says there is much evidence for common descent, but he prefers his religious beliefs.

When you get upset, you start doing all caps, double posts, and so on. Maybe take a break?

"That's evolution, yes. Change in allele frequency in a population over time."

Again? We all observe change in allele frequency in populations over time..

But that wont help a microbe to SLOWLY evolve into a Microbiologist which
is what the proponents of Evolutionism claim. Remember your own fairytale?
Or have you made up your own because it is too embarrassing to admit that
you believe that your great great great great etc grandfather was a microbe..

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

WHO REALLY BELIEVES IN MAGIC

I thought it might be a good idea to set the record straight on who REALLY believes in "Magic"..

Creationists believe that a supernatural intelligence agent (God) Who lives outside the realm of Time / Matter / Space That HE Created was the causation for all of the wonderment, order, design and complexity we see in the world / universe today..


Evolutionists have written the book on magic.. What must be considered Hypocrisy on Steroids..


It goes something like this..


In the beginning, NOTHING (Or a minuscule dot) Exploded (Or suddenly "Expanded) and created all of the matter in the known universe.. no "Magic" needed LOL..


THEN, self replicating DNA molecules, encoded with millions of base pairs with specified / irreducibly complexity were able to mindlessly create themselves out of Dirt, Air, Heat and Water... when Man, with all of his knowledge, technology, resources, and the ability to artificially control atmospheric and chemical conditions CANT EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE how to create DNA,!!!! No "Magic" there ..LOL


Or the fact that Man's (Or his "Ancestor(s)) 10 Vital interdependent organs and their support systems have to ALL be working together in tandem or we DIE and GO EXTINCT.. Which was the "Order" for their "Evolution"? Stomach first? Brain second? Lungs third? Or did they all "Evolve" TOGETHER?? No "Magic" Required" LOL


Oh.. How about the chicken or Egg,?? Which came first? Oh, The Egg?? OK, Just how did all of those genetic blueprints / Specified DNA for that "Proto" Chicken (Or it's FIRST "Egg Laying" Ancestor) GET INSIDE THAT EGG?? WHO OR WHAT PUT IT THERE???? No.. No magic Needed huh??

Or

How about 100 MYO Dinosaur Red Blood Cells, Soft Tissue, and DNA fragments being able to last 100,000,000 Years WITHOUT BIODEGRADING COMPLETELY IN 10,000 YEARS!!!! Noo... No Magic required there....

Or

How about the European Green woodpecker that has a tongue that wraps around the back of its head, over the top of its brain and through its right nostril, We OBSERVE that WITHOUT that special tongue, The bird CANT EAT and DIES,,,, How did that tongue "Evolve" over millions of years? Nice MagicTrick HUH??

Or

The hummingbird has wings that flap at up to 100 times per second so it can hover at eat. Without those special wings, It CANT EAT and DIES, According to the Mindless MYO mud to Man Myth, That hummingbird supposedly evolved over 20 million years from a Tree Swift (Common glider) Who has enough Imagination to believe THAT level of Magic???

Or

How did the Bombardier Beetle manage to somehow "Evolve" the Explosive chemicals, inhibitor, enzymes, glands, combustion tubes, sensory communication, muscles to direct the combustion tubes and reflex nervous systems AT THE SAME TIME in order to be able to perfectly control his defense system YET not blow himself up? No"Magic" Necessary right? LOL

Or


During the course of "500 Million Years" While Living in the same exact environment at the same exact time, while SOME Jellyfish were evolving into Humans, OTHER Jellyfish were evolving into.. Jellyfish Incredible!!! Of course no magic was necessary..


I could go on and on about "Magic" but I hope you get the idea..

I suggest you Atheists / Accidentalists take another look at your hypothetical hypothesis of Evolutionism

We have been brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing a Lie that has ZERO Scientific Evidence to support it..


I believe that you have an emotional attachment to an A Priori assumption that "Evolution" is true.. Not because it is part of science (Which it is NOT) but because...


"Evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"
Richard Dawkins

www.evolutionfairytale.com

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

That's evolution, yes. Change in allele frequency in a population over time. He admits that. He just doesn't think it accounts for common descent. As he says there is much evidence for common descent, but he prefers his religious beliefs.

When you get upset, you start doing all caps, double posts, and so on. Maybe take a break?

"When called out on it, Todd gave me Finches Beaks as evidence for evolution..
I kid you not.. FINCHES BEAKS!!! Ahahahahha.

That's evolution, yes.

That's evolution, yes. Change in allele frequency in a population over time. He admits that. He just doesn't think it accounts for common descent. As he says there is much evidence for common descent, but he prefers his religious beliefs.

When you get upset, you start doing all caps, double posts, and so on. Maybe take a break?

"When you get upset,"

You have me mistaken with someone else Evolutionist..

I love exposing Satan's greatest lie for others to see..

It's what I do, I enjoy it very much and there ain't no one better at it...

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

Let's see what we can find in Part 1:



As we discovered, about 0.3% of people with PhDs in biology or a related field question Darwinian theory.



As you just learned, evolution is directly observed daily. What you're confusing with evolution (remember, its a change in allele frequency in a population over time) is actually a consequence of evolution, i.e. common descent.

As you learned, even many creationist organizations admit some common descent, usually species, genera, and families.



As you also learned, the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. Do you remember when I showed you that Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things? I think you probably need to re-write your opus here, to reflect what you've learned recently.



Usually, because laymen don't know what "theory" means in science. A theory is a well-tested idea or group of ideas that has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. Facts are the things that make theories true. Do you remember when I showed you the differences between facts, hypotheses, laws, and theories? You need to update your article to reflect what you learned then.



No, you're very wrong about that. It's very possible to commit a logical fallacy, and still get a true answer. Try this:
All presidents have been men.
Donald Trump is a man.
Therefore, Donald Trump is president.

It's a fallacy, because the reasoning is faulty, but it's true. Donald Trump is president.

Your fallacy presentation needs some work, some real examples would be useful.



No, that's false. It's not a logical fallacy, this time, you just don't know what evolutionary theory says. It does not say that a more evolved life form will be more complex than the form from which it evolved. For example, the skeletons of mammals are in many ways, more simple than those of reptiles from which mammals evolved. This goes back to my observation that you would do well to learn what evolutionary theory actually says, before telling us about it.

Perhaps the easiest way to cut to the chase is for you to list for us, the processes, required for evolution that are prohibited by any law of thermodynamics. What have you got?



So then, according to your reasoning, a tree can't grow from a seed. Something wrong here, too. Can you think of what it is?

"As we discovered, about 0.3% of people with PhDs in biology or a related field question Darwinian theory."

More Atheist mind reading skills I've been reading about? LOL.. There is simply NO POSSIBLE WAY to know such a thing!!

But of course your assertion based on your fertil imagination is more evidence for our audience that you are promoting your baseless opinions and trying to pawn them off as data..

NO ONE IS FOOLED..

ATHEISTS LAUGH AT OVAL EARTHERS WHO CARRY THEIR BANNER OF GODLESS EVOLUTIONISM FOR THEIR CAUSE..


"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"
Richard Dawkins

"The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental
Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.” “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist


"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’
earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god.
Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing." G. Richard Bozarth,


"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, as secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity,
with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it—
the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today” (Ruse).



"The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a Savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.'"""

Frank Zindler

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

Let's see what we can find in Part 1:



As we discovered, about 0.3% of people with PhDs in biology or a related field question Darwinian theory.



As you just learned, evolution is directly observed daily. What you're confusing with evolution (remember, its a change in allele frequency in a population over time) is actually a consequence of evolution, i.e. common descent.

As you learned, even many creationist organizations admit some common descent, usually species, genera, and families.



As you also learned, the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. Do you remember when I showed you that Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things? I think you probably need to re-write your opus here, to reflect what you've learned recently.



Usually, because laymen don't know what "theory" means in science. A theory is a well-tested idea or group of ideas that has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. Facts are the things that make theories true. Do you remember when I showed you the differences between facts, hypotheses, laws, and theories? You need to update your article to reflect what you learned then.



No, you're very wrong about that. It's very possible to commit a logical fallacy, and still get a true answer. Try this:
All presidents have been men.
Donald Trump is a man.
Therefore, Donald Trump is president.

It's a fallacy, because the reasoning is faulty, but it's true. Donald Trump is president.

Your fallacy presentation needs some work, some real examples would be useful.



No, that's false. It's not a logical fallacy, this time, you just don't know what evolutionary theory says. It does not say that a more evolved life form will be more complex than the form from which it evolved. For example, the skeletons of mammals are in many ways, more simple than those of reptiles from which mammals evolved. This goes back to my observation that you would do well to learn what evolutionary theory actually says, before telling us about it.

Perhaps the easiest way to cut to the chase is for you to list for us, the processes, required for evolution that are prohibited by any law of thermodynamics. What have you got?



So then, according to your reasoning, a tree can't grow from a seed. Something wrong here, too. Can you think of what it is?

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, as secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity,
with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it— the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today” (Ruse).

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

ANOTHER ARTICLE WHERE AND ATHEIST LAUGHS AT OVAL-EARTHERS.... (AND JUSTIFIABLY SO)

By Jerry Coyne

Here's my thesis for the evening: The fact of evolution is not only inherently atheistic, it is inherently anti-theistic. It goes against the notion that there is a god.
Accepting evolution and science tends to promote the acceptance of atheism. Now, it doesn't always, of course. There are many religious people who accept evolution. I would say they're guilty of cognitive dissonance, or at least of some kind of watery deism.

The path from going to an evolutionary biologist to an atheist is pretty straightforward. You write a book on evolution with the indubitable facts showing that it has to be true, as true as the existence of gravity or neutrons, and then you realize that half of America is not going to buy it no matter what you say. Their minds cannot be changed; their eyes are blinkered.

And so you start studying what it is about religion that makes people resistant to evolution. You discover that religion is in some ways like science, but it's a pseudoscience. It makes scientific claims, or at least empirical claims, about the real world, but then adjudicates those claims in a completely different way from science.

So you start realizing that religion is perverting what you're trying to do with science by making statements about the world, but then supporting them with various cockamamie methods. And so you become an atheist and you might then become an anti-theist because you see that religion is promoting ways of thinking about the world that are not sound.

READ MORE HERE..


Evolution and atheism: Best friends forever: Jerry Coyne - Freedom From Religion Foundation

 

[The Barbarian]

There's a reason why some militant atheists and some YE creationists find common ground in insisting that science and God are incompatible.

For the rest of us, the idea is laughable.

We have noted that your response to my request for you to name even one process of evolution that is ruled out by any law of thermodynamics was ignored, and you threw up a quote by an atheist denouncing religion instead.

We all understand why you didn't answer the question.

 

[The Barbarian]

"As we discovered, about 0.3% of people with PhDs in biology or a related field question Darwinian theory."

More Atheist mind reading skills I've been reading about? LOL.. There is simply NO POSSIBLE WAY to know such a thing!!

Actually, we can. Project Steve is a list of people named "Steve" or some variation of the name, with doctorates in biology or a related field, who accept evolutionary theory. This can be compared with the Discovery Institute's list of "Scientists who doubt Darwin." Turns out, they have less than 1% as many Steves as Project Steve. Last time I checked, about 0.3%. If you like, you can do your own research, but it will never go much over 1%.

But of course your assertion based on your fertil imagination is more evidence for our audience that you are promoting your baseless opinions and trying to pawn them off as data..

NO ONE IS FOOLED..

Surprise.

(more endorsements of your position from atheists)

Yep. The usual.

 

[The Barbarian]

"When you get upset,"

You have me mistaken with someone else Evolutionist..

In real life, you're probably a pretty good guy. You seem to genuinely believe in God. And yet, this subject makes you go completely over the side.

You could be more effective if you'd learn more science. The thermodynamics thing seems to be a complete mystery to you, so a single question about it, easily derailed your argument. If you understood even the basic mathematical issues of thermodynamics, you'd probably have done better.

And you let disagreement rattle you much too easily.

Just think about it.

 

[The Barbarian]

"Evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races."

NO That was actually the BIBLE that has shown us that..

Your fellow YE creationists disagree with you...

The last world-classbiologist who opposed Darwnian theory (Agassiz) thought that black people did not even descent from Adam and Eve. And one of the founders of the Institute for Creation Research wrote bit of racial slander:
Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
YE creationist and ICR director Henry Morris The Beginning of the World, 1991

As you know, evolutionary theory indicates that there are no biological human races, but as late a 1991, creationist leaders were blathering about the supposed racial inferiority of black people. This is one of the important differences between creationists and Christians who accept evolution.

Not that all creationists are racists. Many, probably most, are not. But to see such blatant and ridiculous racism from a creastionist leader in the 1990s, indicates a serious problem with YE creationism.

I believe you've been shown that Darwin differed from most creationists of his day by opposing slavery and considering all humans to be equally entitled to respect and rights. He scandalized many creationists of his day by insisting that if one took a group of "primitive" humans to England, within a few generations, their descendants would be just like Englishmen.

The Fairytale of evolution promoted Racism like nothing in history...

See above. You have it backwards. We see creationist leaders like Morris and William Tinkle, endorsing racism and eugenics, at the same time Darwinian geneticists were exposing it for the nonsense it is. Would you like me to show you, again?

Is this ignorance? OR willfully lying?

I"m pretty sure you're not lying, and I don't want to call you "ignorant." You were clearly not aware of this, but creationist organizations aren't exactly proud of that history.

You cant even remember the COMPLETE name of your hero's book can you..

Yep. But that's a loser for you, too. "Races" is the term that biologists of the time used for classifying varieties of organisms within the same species. In fact, Darwin never mentions anything about human evolution in that book.

With Murray's persuasion, the title was eventually agreed as On the Origin of Species, with the title page adding by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.[3] In this extended title (and elsewhere in the book) Darwin used the biological term "races" interchangeably with "varieties", meaning varieties within a species.[76][77] He used the term broadly,[78] and as well as discussions of "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants",[79] there are three instances in the book where the phrase "races of man" is used, referring to races of humans.
On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia

Most like likely you didn't know that. (Hence the benefit of the doubt)

If you are racist, there is a very good chance that you also believe in the theory of evolution.

If you accept evolution, you cannot consistently be a racist, since (as you learned earlier) evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races. On the other hand racists like Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research were still peddling foolish ideas about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people. As I said, many, perhaps most creationists are not racists. But it's disturbing that it was present in the creationist leadership so recently.

Another very prominent racist who was also a hardcore Darwinist was Adolf Hitler.

In fact, the Darwinian geneticist Punnett (of Punnett square fame) showed that Hitler's eugenic and racial ideas were not only despicable (as Darwin wrote) but were also scientifically unsupportable.

Geneticist Reginald Punnet, who invented the Punnett Square, method of quantifying the inhertiance of genetic traits, showed that eugenics would not work. Punnet explained that even with the strongest negative eugenics, carried out against individuals who were homozygous for the inferior gene, it would take 22 generations (almost 500 years) to reduce the amount of feeblemindedness from 1 percent to 0.1 percent in a population, according to his calculations.
Encyclopedia of Evolution (p. 147)

Hitler pointed to another source for his "final solution."
The Nazis Exploited Martin Luther’s Legacy. This Berlin Exhibit Highlights How.

About 90% of Hitler's "final solution" can be found in Luther's work, On the Jews and Their Lies.

It's not an accident that creationism is most prevalent where segregation existed in the United State. Most people have moved past that dark period in our nation, but not everyone.

 

[The Barbarian]

HEY ATHEISTS!! ARENT YOU AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT CURIOUS AS TO WHY NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ASKING FOR A PLAUSIBLE EVOLUTIONARY ORDER OF THE 10 VITAL ORGANS FROM MICROBE TO MICROBIOLOGIST THAT PASSES THE LAUGH TEST?

Atheists might not want to do that, but I already showed you. I took you to the earliest, at which time I showed you that integument (skin) and nerves appeared first. You lost interest and started a different subject. Would you like to pick this issue up again? I'd be happy show you what came about next.

As you now realize, they didn't have to all appear at once. Relatively few organisms have all of them.

 

[The Barbarian]

But that wont help a microbe to SLOWLY evolve into a Microbiologist which
is what the proponents of Evolutionism claim.

No, remember what I showed you. Humans evolved from other primates. You're confusing evolution, with a consequence of evolution, common descent.

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

That's evolution, yes. Change in allele frequency in a population over time. He admits that. He just doesn't think it accounts for common descent. As he says there is much evidence for common descent, but he prefers his religious beliefs.

When you get upset, you start doing all caps, double posts, and so on. Maybe take a break?

"When called out on it, Todd gave me Finches Beaks as evidence for evolution..
I kid you not.. FINCHES BEAKS!!! Ahahahahha.

"That's evolution, yes."

Only for neurotic religious zealots of Evolutionism who have a severe emotional attachment to Satan's lie of Evolutionism are finches beak variation examples of Evolution... But for those people like yourself, The wind blowing is more than enough evidence to convince you that humans are Accidental apes that slowly evolved from sea sponges and are related to cockroaches, bananas elephants and jellyfish.,.. (TOE)

HOWEVER

For normal dispassionate people who don't have an agenda, finches beak variation is an example of Variation of Adaptation and Finches have ALWAYS been Finches and will ALWAYS BE Finches... God Created Birds in the beginning..Just Like he said in Genesis.. why do the Oval-Earthers hate science so much?

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

Atheists might not want to do that, but I already showed you. I took you to the earliest, at which time I showed you that integument (skin) and nerves appeared first. You lost interest and started a different subject. Would you like to pick this issue up again? I'd be happy show you what came about next.

As you now realize, they didn't have to all appear at once. Relatively few organisms have all of them.

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

No, remember what I showed you. Humans evolved from other primates. You're confusing evolution, with a consequence of evolution, common descent.

But that wont help a microbe to SLOWLY evolve into a Microbiologist which
is what the proponents of Evolutionism claim.

"No, remember what I showed you. Humans evolved from other primates."

More selective hypocrisy and silly trickery... Everyone sees through it..

Why do you lie so much? I guess you really don't have much choice...

FOR OUR READERS... IT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT ACCORDING TO THE
FAIRYTALE OF EVOLUTION MAN EVOLVED FROM MICROBES... IS THIS GUY
INVENTING HIS OWN SCIENCE FICTION NOVEL? LOL.. ANOTHER LIE EXPOSED...

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

Atheists might not want to do that, but I already showed you. I took you to the earliest, at which time I showed you that integument (skin) and nerves appeared first. You lost interest and started a different subject. Would you like to pick this issue up again? I'd be happy show you what came about next.

As you now realize, they didn't have to all appear at once. Relatively few organisms have all of them.

I took you to the earliest, at which time I showed you that integument (skin) and nerves appeared first.

WHICH one evolved FIRST? skin? OR nerves? Or did they "evolve at exactly the same instant? LOL..

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

I SAID
But that wont help a microbe to SLOWLY evolve into a Microbiologist which
is what the proponents of Evolutionism claim.

YOU RESPONDED
"No, remember what I showed you. Humans evolved from other primates."

WHICH IS A LIE.. (EXPOSED HERE FOR OUR READERS)

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

I SAID
But that wont help a microbe to SLOWLY evolve into a Microbiologist which
is what the proponents of Evolutionism claim.

HE RESPONDED
"No, remember what I showed you. Humans evolved from other primates."

WHICH IS A LIE.. (EXPOSED HERE AGAIN FOR OUR READERS) LOOK TO
THE UPPER LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE CHART.. I AM OWED AN APOLOGY
BUT THE OVAL-EARTHERS NEVER APOLOGIZE.. THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE
MEANS...

 

[The Barbarian]

But that wont help a microbe to SLOWLY evolve into a Microbiologist which
is what the proponents of Evolutionism claim.

"Evolutionism" is your invention. So it's your problem. As you know, humans evolved from other primates.

WHICH IS A LIE.. (EXPOSED HERE AGAIN FOR OUR READERS) LOOK TO
THE UPPER LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE CHART.. I AM OWED AN APOLOGY
BUT THE OVAL-EARTHERS NEVER APOLOGIZE.. THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE
MEANS...

Perhaps you got it backwards. Notice your chart also has humans evolving from primates. It's in the middle right side. Sometimes, it's better to just admit what it is.

THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS...

Even most creationists don't think so. But maybe some of them do.

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

"Evolutionism" is your invention. So it's your problem. As you know, humans evolved from other primates.

Perhaps you got it backwards. Notice your chart also has humans evolving from primates. It's in the middle right side. Sometimes, it's better to just admit what it is.

Even most creationists don't think so. But maybe some of them do.

I SAID..
"But that wont help a microbe to SLOWLY evolve into a Microbiologist which
is what the proponents of Evolutionism claim."
WHICH WAS 100% CORRECT AND EVERYONE KNOW IT..

WHY THE CONSTANT OBFUSCATION AND INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY?