Evolution vs. Creation

[HTS]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>ummm...abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
sucks when you look so foolish through your own words, huh?

I'm well familiar with that stupid line. The false bifurcation of evolution and abiogenesis was established during the lifetime of Charles Darwin as scientists saw the impending collapse of spontaneous generation.
Darwinism is founded on the assumption that no intelligent design exists. All purported mechanisms of evolution are presumed to be atheistic forces. If abiogenesis is impossible, then Darwinism is reduced to nothing. Simply stating that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution doesn't erase the problem.

[woodtick57]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Ofcourse! because both the questions and answers are always pointing to that direction, " who ".

No, no they are not. only for those that are stuck in the stone-age mindset of the creator.

[woodtick57]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>I'm well familiar with that stupid line. The false bifurcation of evolution and abiogenesis was established during the lifetime of Charles Darwin as scientists saw the impending collapse of spontaneous generation.
Darwinism is founded on the assumption that no intelligent design exists. All purported mechanisms of evolution are presumed to be atheistic forces. If abiogenesis is impossible, then Darwinism is reduced to nothing. Simply stating that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution doesn't erase the problem.

in fact, darwin believed life was created by a god.

how is abiogenesis different from how you think life started? life from non-living stuff, right?

[Charles Idemi]

TerryL wrote:

<quoted text>Why is "I don't know" not an acceptable answer for the religious? How does inserting "god-did-it" (when "I don't know" would be an honest answer) actually do anything other than stifle further inquiry?

How can you say that, are indirectly saying that science is a failure in this regard?
Any way, it is.

[Charles Idemi]

TerryL wrote:

<quoted text>I don't know, and neither do you. I'm comfortable letting scientists follow the evidence to where it leads instead of leading the evidence to a preconceived idea like religion does. Claiming "god-did-it" answers nothing and explains even less. If you're comfortable with that level of 'knowledge', why are you even here arguing about it?

Foul!
You don't know simple!
But spiritually, God almighty exist.
When it comes to the study of spirits, science is zero.

[Charles Idemi]

TerryL wrote:

<quoted text>1 shred of evidence for how the universe came about would be 2x more than what you have as 'evidence' for your 'god'. The fact that there lots of very good evidence giving clues to how the univers formed just means there is more for you to ignore

Foul!
No one to date, has given a satisfactory answer.

[woodtick57]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Foul!
You don't know simple!
But spiritually, God almighty exist.
When it comes to the study of spirits, science is zero.

Cus there is not one sghred of proof that there are any spirits or souls or anything of the such. again, they are a non-issue in the real world.

another myth you dragged from antiquity...

[Charles Idemi]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>you have absolutely zero evidence of that claim. why do you bveleive it? because it sounds cool? cuz it supports your ego?

Irony!
Because it supports your ego.
God is real, no one can rule that out, with a waive of hand.

[Charles Idemi]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>you obviously do get it. you rely on fiction to guide your life. science relies on reality.

And yet science are unable to answer the big question, how did the universe came into form, when in reality, it suppose to know.

[woodtick57]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> And yet science are unable to answer the big question, how did the universe came into form, when in reality, it suppose to know.

Ahy do you think it is supposed to know?

[woodtick57]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Irony!
Because it supports your ego.
God is real, no one can rule that out, with a waive of hand.

Again, that is not irony. you are big on using terms you do not understand.

One does not have to rule somthing out that has never even been brought into the world of reality.

[CBOW]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>if you believe the christian god myth, you ar the one embracing proven lies. why do you embrace lies?

Your religion of atheism is a lie, why do you embrace and support lies? Trying to find solace in this worn out thread, I see.

[TerryL]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Ofcourse! because both the questions and answers are always pointing to that direction, " who ".

Only if you start with the premise that there has to be a 'who'.

Other than it being easy, why does being ignorant appeal to you so much?

[Elohim]

CBOW wrote:

<quoted text>
Your religion of atheism is a lie, why do you embrace and support lies? Trying to find solace in this worn out thread, I see.

Atheism is not a religion.

[TerryL]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> How can you say that, are indirectly saying that science is a failure in this regard?
Any way, it is.

You really are an idiot. Keep clinging to your myth since it was designed for people exactly like you... those who need someone to do their 'thinking' for them

[TerryL]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Foul!
You don't know simple!
But spiritually, God almighty exist.
When it comes to the study of spirits, science is zero.

Fool! One cannot study anything that cannot be shown to exist.

[TerryL]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Irony!
Because it supports your ego.
God is real, no one can rule that out, with a waive of hand.

That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed using that same lack of evidence.

[Cybele]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
So you buy all the snake oil ... not surprising. No really, I expected you to use some old wive's tale so this post of yours does not surprise me in the least. But here's the thing, there are some animals that are "useless" in their niche, and somehow manage to survive in spite of it. It's well within our understanding. "Fit" does not mean it has a "purpose" in the niche, it means it can survive in that niche. Tardigrades .... the perfect example of such. They can survive in extreme environments, one where they serve absolutely no purpose at all, they just survive, and they do it so well they can be in nearly absolute zero temperatures and even survive on the edges of volcanoes, just not in the magma/lava itself mind you. But ... they don't "do" anything, except consume and reproduce ... and die of old age. So yeah, they're useless, we may one day find a use for them, such as allowing us to figure out how to transport humans through space, but all they are right now is an oddity.

So what is known as the toughest animal that exists in hostile environment has no use? Just because you don't know why they exist doesn't mean they are useless. These tough critters might be a key to discovering life on other planets. But who knows. Don't be so ignorant. Don't tell me bacteria doesn't have a purpose too. That's part of nature. Deal with it.

[HTS]

Elohim wrote:

<quoted text>Atheism is not a religion.

The biggest fallacy promoted by atheists is that their religion is not a religion. A religion does not require a belief in God. Atheists applaud natural selection with awe and reverence and pay homage to Charles Darwin. They worship at the feet of intellectional elites. They Deify themselves and the forces of nature to explain what they cannot comprehend.

[woodtick57]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah you think some animals are useless? Don't underestimate them they can tell when danger is coming. Have you had any fish in an aquarium? They're so beautiful and they are so relaxing to look at. Do you eat fish at all? They're good for the brain.

i never even came close to saying any animals are useless. i eat fish more than any other animal. i like fresh meat that i know where it came from, so i catch all my own fish.

the point i was making was that some animals are not able to have the higher brain functions of love and caring. you are the one that excluded them...

I'm outta here...*poof*