Evolution vs. Creation

[Yankee Yahoo]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
And here's a prime example of the bullshit. If you want to dispute the evidence, take your best shot. But to say there is none *IS* bullshit.

There IS NO EVIDENCE. Therefore, nothing to dispute. The scientific community for well over a century has failed to sustain it with evidence they THOUGHT would present itself in the near future. Even Darwin admitted this, and knew that evolution was BS unless more evidence was found.

It hasn't been found. Zero evidence.

Enough is enough. How long are you going to waste our time pushing flat-earth theories? You might as well pretend the static state theory is still valid, too. Scientists also clung to that with bitterness despite all the evidence, because the big Bang sounded too religion for their taste.

Religious prejudices, maybe that is why you still cling to the past?

[Yankee Yahoo]

TerryL wrote:

<quoted text>Yet here you are not getting over it and not moving on.

No, that would be the 150 year old theory that you people can't let go.

:)

[Yankee Yahoo]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
Move on to what? You're rejecting creationism. You're rejecting evolution. So what comes next?
Or are you here merely to criticize and offer nothing?

Um, REAL SCIENCE. Like space travel, food production, solving serious social problems, sociology, political science, technology, colonization of other worlds, terraforming ... etc.

Why are you so obsessed with how we got here? Quit wasting time and ENJOY LIFE AND MOVE ON.

Evolution has become a sick, almost religious obsession with the past, and the rejection that many things will always be a mystery.

I'm ok with mysterious, because there is a great deal more important things for scientists to be interested in. There is the future.

Quit dwelling on the past.

[Charles Idemi]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
I *know* what it symbolizes, jackass. It's still not a translation.

So, Mr. Know all, give me the translation of the words into?

[woodtick57]

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL!!!
Why have you brought religion into this?
There is no evidence for evolution. Not one bit. The theories do not hold. The mutations do not occur. The fossil record does not confirm. Science itself dictates the evolutionary model has no standing. It is a REASONABLE theory, but after 150 years of still filling in countless, and infinite gaps, the evidence just isn't there. Modern biology no longer can be used to support it, life is far more complex than ever Darwin could have guessed at.
And it was Christians that advanced the theory of evolution more than anyone else in its humble beginnings. There was never a motive for Christians to denounce it, as it does not in any way conflict with theology. There is no motive or conspiracy against evolution, and never was.
And it is NOT modern knowledge. It is archaic, outdated, and outmoded in light of todays science. No other pursuit has done more damage to the scientific community than the continued pursuit of a bad dream that is evolution.
You are the flat-earther. But it takes people waking up, and removing the bias of such phrases of "well established facts" which is nothing more than an intellectual disgusting way of saying something is true without any evidence.

the basic premise in your first paragraph is faulty, that is why you have come to a faulty conclusion. thereis, in fact, evidence to support it, as has been shown to you.

i think your previous statement of making this decision of yours without outside evidence, but by your own thoughts says it all...

[woodtick57]

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
Pretty cool.
I see it all the time.

Please elaborate. you would be the very first in the world to have such evidence...

[Charles Idemi]

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
Charles dating a mirror?
A succubus...anomymous has selective escatological theology on his mind!
tsszzzizzling
nah, just that after heavy dining, as the clergy did, feeling of compressed long-space, when lying down.
But they nowadays still do exorcisms, and explain the physiological phenomena still in that way...if you are a man.

Say the truh and you...

[woodtick57]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> We have heard many people who have said that, but today where are they? they are dead and buried. Fighting God or trying to disprove God, is like fighting death or trying to disprove death.

No need to fight or disprove something that has zero evidence to even begin a discussion about it...it would be like disproving the Easter bunny, not worthy of serious discussion until some evidence of its existence is shown.

[Yankee Yahoo]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
I love this argument. As if no scientists would want to overturn evolution, become world famous and claim his or her $1,000,000+ Nobel Award.

Ever hear of Galileo?

Mmmm?

No, it is not so easy for the scientific rebels to challenge a community that believes in "well established facts" and has no interests in hearing alternative theories.

While the burden of proof must always remain with the challenger to the status quo, it is cheating to not even let a challenger come forth, and scoffing, laughing, and cutting funding before it even began.

It's a human problem. Humans can be really stupid, even as scientists.

[Aerobatty]

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL!!!
Why have you brought religion into this?
There is no evidence for evolution. Not one bit. The theories do not hold. The mutations do not occur. The fossil record does not confirm. Science itself dictates the evolutionary model has no standing. It is a REASONABLE theory, but after 150 years of still filling in countless, and infinite gaps, the evidence just isn't there. Modern biology no longer can be used to support it, life is far more complex than ever Darwin could have guessed at.
And it was Christians that advanced the theory of evolution more than anyone else in its humble beginnings. There was never a motive for Christians to denounce it, as it does not in any way conflict with theology. There is no motive or conspiracy against evolution, and never was.
And it is NOT modern knowledge. It is archaic, outdated, and outmoded in light of todays science. No other pursuit has done more damage to the scientific community than the continued pursuit of a bad dream that is evolution.
You are the flat-earther. But it takes people waking up, and removing the bias of such phrases of "well established facts" which is nothing more than an intellectual disgusting way of saying something is true without any evidence.

Ok.

You're a POE.

[Yankee Yahoo]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
I say this because God encoded DNA for all intelligent life in his lab, the planets in the universe, where elements were also created. He's not only a Scientist but also a Mathematician, Artist, Architect, and all that.
You are right, atheistic evolution hinders the progress of real science because life could not have started by natural processes on its own. They believe in MUTATION. I believe in PERMUTATION.
I also think there is intelligent life in other planets or galaxies.

Ah, I see. Well, that is more honest a position than most atheists hold here.

Once people realize the model is a fraud, then we can move on to other interesting ideas.

But currently, the scientific community is very much afraid of change, and is holding science back.

[thewordofme]

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Um, REAL SCIENCE. Like space travel, food production, solving serious social problems, sociology, political science, technology, colonization of other worlds, terraforming ... etc.
Why are you so obsessed with how we got here? Quit wasting time and ENJOY LIFE AND MOVE ON.
Evolution has become a sick, almost religious obsession with the past, and the rejection that many things will always be a mystery.
I'm ok with mysterious, because there is a great deal more important things for scientists to be interested in. There is the future.
Quit dwelling on the past.

Once again you are showing that you have a total lack of knowledge about science and the scientific method.

Science is doing what it always does...and you have no clue.

[Charles Idemi]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> So, Mr. Know all, give me the translation of the words into?

I meant into English.

[Yankee Yahoo]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
I sort of half watched a horizon program about 6 months ago and it was suggested that true life from non living chemical ingredients is predicted within 10 to 12 years. Unfortunately I can’t remember the name of the program so I need to wait for the repeat.
Artificial, self replicating life has been created in the laboratory
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745868/Sc...
I also heard similar artificial molecules have been seen to evolve
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-a...

And neither support the evolutionary model.

One, by designing life, you show that life may have been designed to begin with, and denounce evolution. The designing of new life by artificial means can NEVER been used to support evolution, by simple logical deduction.

And in the second case, you are using evolution in place of natural changes, or breeding. CHANGE is the word, not evolution. By this misuse of the word, you can claim ANYTHING is evolving, as indeed it is as STRICTLY defined. Society evolves, people evolves, the president's position on gay marriages evolves, etc, etc, etc.

So, which is it? Do you not see you own error?(And if so, will you admit it here?) Or are you deliberately lying to maintain your world view?

[woodtick57]

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, I see. Well, that is more honest a position than most atheists hold here.
Once people realize the model is a fraud, then we can move on to other interesting ideas.
But currently, the scientific community is very much afraid of change, and is holding science back.

what more interesting ideas would those be?

[MikeF]

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
There IS NO EVIDENCE. Therefore, nothing to dispute. The scientific community for well over a century has failed to sustain it with evidence they THOUGHT would present itself in the near future. Even Darwin admitted this, and knew that evolution was BS unless more evidence was found.
It hasn't been found. Zero evidence.
Enough is enough. How long are you going to waste our time pushing flat-earth theories? You might as well pretend the static state theory is still valid, too. Scientists also clung to that with bitterness despite all the evidence, because the big Bang sounded too religion for their taste.
Religious prejudices, maybe that is why you still cling to the past?

OK, bullshit it is then. Thanks for the clarification.

[thewordofme]

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, I see. Well, that is more honest a position than most atheists hold here.
Once people realize the model is a fraud, then we can move on to other interesting ideas.
But currently, the scientific community is very much afraid of change, and is holding science back.

This particular forum is about evolution vs creation. We already know where you stand on evolution....where do you stand on creationism??

[MikeF]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> So, Mr. Know all, give me the translation of the words into?

The Greek letters alpha and omega are just that. Letters. They are not words to be translated.

[Yankee Yahoo]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>yet there is not one teensy bit of evidnece of ANY supernatural processes...ever. not one. not even Bullwinkle pulling a rabbit out of his hat...
so with the lack of any supernatural events, that pretty much only leaves natural events doesn't it?
when you exclude the impossible, the remaining options, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Right.

So who did something come out of nothing?

Where did the universe?

What are you defining as "supernatural." Strictly speaking, it means that which nature cannot explain naturally, o appears beyond nature, which leaves much of the whole universe and its working in the realm of the supernatural. The Big Bang has yet to be explained, and how time and space exploded into existence.

It would appear you are holding back on us, and must have a VAST storehouse of knowledge to be so arrogant ... or such a fool.

[Charles Idemi]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>No need to fight or disprove something that has zero evidence to even begin a discussion about it...it would be like disproving the Easter bunny, not worthy of serious discussion until some evidence of its existence is shown.

And you are going to end up like others, while the existence of God, continues.