Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution and Religion

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 5:27:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It really gets annoying when religious people purposefully disregard science in favour of not accepting a theory, which is the single-most unifying theme in biology and encompasses all of life science. To hopefully remedy this, I will address the common religious dumbfvckery that makes them deny evolution:

"Life cannot come from non-life. You believe we came from rain hitting on the surface of a rock. You call that logical? pshhh sure"- GODisreal

Despite the complete lack of intelligence in this statement, the individual does bring about a common misconception about evolution. Evolution has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis. Abiogenisis is the creation of life from non-life. Evolution is the differential reproductive success of organisms. No matter how abiogenesis is done, it has absolutely zero effects on the validity of evolution.

"I accept micro-evolution but deny macro-evolution"- Medic

"Evolutionary processes taking place in relatively small scales of space and time connect to larger-scale entities, processes, and events to produce the entire history of life from the smallest incremental evolutionary change to the vast spectrum running from the simplest bacteria on up through the complex fungi, plants, and animals--from, in other words, the small-scale changes of so-called microevolution on up through the larger-scaled changes often referred to as macroevolution. This tremendously diverse array of life, spanning at least 3.5 billion years of Earth history, is all connected by a pattern of nested sets of genetic and anatomical similarity that can rationally be explained only as the simple outcome of a natural shared descent with modification [pp. 62-3]."

http://www.straightdope.com...

The truth is that macroevolution is just microevolution on a grander scale. There is no scientific distinction between the two.

"Evolution contradicts the Bible"- Dumbfvcks.

Since evolution has nothing to say about abiogenisis, by accepting the theory of evolution, nothing is said about how life came to be from non-life or whether some kind of deistic creature was responsible for the creation of life.

As for the creation story, the original Bible does not mention the word "day" by name, and even if it did, there is no reason to say that the definition of the word would have held constant over 6 000 years. The original Bible mentions six distinct time periods, which is not in contradiction to evolution.

Hopefully, I'll add more as further dumbfvcks chime in. :)
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Mystical
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 5:38:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 5:27:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It really gets annoying when religious people purposefully disregard science in favour of not accepting a theory, which is the single-most unifying theme in biology and encompasses all of life science. To hopefully remedy this, I will address the common religious dumbfvckery that makes them deny evolution:

"Life cannot come from non-life. You believe we came from rain hitting on the surface of a rock. You call that logical? pshhh sure"- GODisreal

Despite the complete lack of intelligence in this statement, the individual does bring about a common misconception about evolution. Evolution has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis. Abiogenisis is the creation of life from non-life. Evolution is the differential reproductive success of organisms. No matter how abiogenesis is done, it has absolutely zero effects on the validity of evolution.


Agreed, and correct.

"I accept micro-evolution but deny macro-evolution"- Medic

"Evolutionary processes taking place in relatively small scales of space and time connect to larger-scale entities, processes, and events to produce the entire history of life from the smallest incremental evolutionary change to the vast spectrum running from the simplest bacteria on up through the complex fungi, plants, and animals--from, in other words, the small-scale changes of so-called microevolution on up through the larger-scaled changes often referred to as macroevolution. This tremendously diverse array of life, spanning at least 3.5 billion years of Earth history, is all connected by a pattern of nested sets of genetic and anatomical similarity that can rationally be explained only as the simple outcome of a natural shared descent with modification [pp. 62-3]."

http://www.straightdope.com...

The truth is that macroevolution is just microevolution on a grander scale. There is no scientific distinction between the two.

Agreed, once again. Accepting microevolution as true, while denying macroevolution as false is intellectual dishonesty, as, like you said, macroevolution is simply microevolution on a larger scale.


"Evolution contradicts the Bible"- Dumbfvcks.

Since evolution has nothing to say about abiogenisis, by accepting the theory of evolution, nothing is said about how life came to be from non-life or whether some kind of deistic creature was responsible for the creation of life.

As for the creation story, the original Bible does not mention the word "day" by name, and even if it did, there is no reason to say that the definition of the word would have held constant over 6 000 years. The original Bible mentions six distinct time periods, which is not in contradiction to evolution.

Hopefully, I'll add more as further dumbfvcks chime in. :)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 5:43:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 5:38:19 PM, Mystical wrote:
At 10/2/2012 5:27:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It really gets annoying when religious people purposefully disregard science in favour of not accepting a theory, which is the single-most unifying theme in biology and encompasses all of life science. To hopefully remedy this, I will address the common religious dumbfvckery that makes them deny evolution:

"Life cannot come from non-life. You believe we came from rain hitting on the surface of a rock. You call that logical? pshhh sure"- GODisreal

Despite the complete lack of intelligence in this statement, the individual does bring about a common misconception about evolution. Evolution has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis. Abiogenisis is the creation of life from non-life. Evolution is the differential reproductive success of organisms. No matter how abiogenesis is done, it has absolutely zero effects on the validity of evolution.


Agreed, and correct.

"I accept micro-evolution but deny macro-evolution"- Medic

"Evolutionary processes taking place in relatively small scales of space and time connect to larger-scale entities, processes, and events to produce the entire history of life from the smallest incremental evolutionary change to the vast spectrum running from the simplest bacteria on up through the complex fungi, plants, and animals--from, in other words, the small-scale changes of so-called microevolution on up through the larger-scaled changes often referred to as macroevolution. This tremendously diverse array of life, spanning at least 3.5 billion years of Earth history, is all connected by a pattern of nested sets of genetic and anatomical similarity that can rationally be explained only as the simple outcome of a natural shared descent with modification [pp. 62-3]."

http://www.straightdope.com...

The truth is that macroevolution is just microevolution on a grander scale. There is no scientific distinction between the two.

Agreed, once again. Accepting microevolution as true, while denying macroevolution as false is intellectual dishonesty, as, like you said, macroevolution is simply microevolution on a larger scale.


"Evolution contradicts the Bible"- Dumbfvcks.

Since evolution has nothing to say about abiogenisis, by accepting the theory of evolution, nothing is said about how life came to be from non-life or whether some kind of deistic creature was responsible for the creation of life.

As for the creation story, the original Bible does not mention the word "day" by name, and even if it did, there is no reason to say that the definition of the word would have held constant over 6 000 years. The original Bible mentions six distinct time periods, which is not in contradiction to evolution.

Hopefully, I'll add more as further dumbfvcks chime in. :)

You're a libertarian atheist, which means that you are smarter than 90% of the population. This post wasn't for you :)
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 5:45:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 5:43:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

You're a libertarian atheist, which means that you are smarter than 90% of the population. This post wasn't for you :)

Ohhh *leaves thread*
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 6:18:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It gets quite annoying when evolutionary mystics try to push their lies on the planet and our children. That is simply what evolution is, a theory and pagan cult. It is no more provable than saying, "I am God." That is where evolution is focused upon, producing new thinking and faith in the eyes of people to think they will evolution into a Godlike state. I deny evolution because it simply is not plausable. Then evolutionist say, "we did not say we evolved from rocks", well what was the big bang about then? What was the prior condition before the big bang? We can over look the complete lack of intelligent thinking in this theory and just focus on its teaching. The teaching is not 150 years old but thousands of years old. This teaching is of the acient mystery schools and was told to Eve in the garden of Eden. Think, just where does this claim lead too? Man evolving into a superhuman and a God. This is a system of thought perperated by the bulk of scientific community and politics. It is pure propaganda and matter of fact, lies. We can see this hardcore indoctrine in this post here by knucks. He has been indoctrined and seeks all to be also indoctrined and what he has accepted without any real thought, seeks to ridicule others who do not accept it so easily and question it with real thought.

What facts are there in evolution?
TheAsylum
Mystical
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 6:34:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 6:18:44 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
It gets quite annoying when evolutionary mystics try to push their lies on the planet and our children. That is simply what evolution is, a theory and pagan cult.

*Sigh*
This is false; a common idiotic attempt at refuting the evolutionary theory. A *theory* and a *scientific theory* are different, good man. YOUR argument incorrectly insists that evolution is a THEORY. However, it is a scientific theory, not a theory.

It is no more provable than saying, "I am God." That is where evolution is focused upon, producing new thinking and faith in the eyes of people to think they will evolution into a Godlike state. I deny evolution because it simply is not plausable.

Why not? Have you any evidence to the contrary?
http://en.wikipedia.org...
A MASSIVE list of sources and further reading down there, by the way.

Then evolutionist say, "we did not say we evolved from rocks", well what was the big bang about then? What was the prior condition before the big bang?

Poor argument. The Big Bang theory and evolutionary theory explain two different things.

We can over look the complete lack of intelligent thinking in this theory and just focus on its teaching. The teaching is not 150 years old but thousands of years old. This teaching is of the acient mystery schools and was told to Eve in the garden of Eden. Think, just where does this claim lead too? Man evolving into a superhuman and a God. This is a system of thought perperated by the bulk of scientific community and politics. It is pure propaganda and matter of fact, lies.

Psh, how is the evolutionary theory, mind you it's backed by much evidence, lies and your belief that an omnipotent god creating the universe and all life isn't?

We can see this hardcore indoctrine in this post here by knucks. He has been indoctrined and seeks all to be also indoctrined and what he has accepted without any real thought, seeks to ridicule others who do not accept it so easily and question it with real thought.

Not really indoctrination. Most atheists were theists of some sort before they changed position. So, if anything, theists (which includes you, I presume, unless your playing Devil's Advocate) are indoctrinated.

What facts are there in evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 6:35:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 5:27:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It really gets annoying when religious people purposefully disregard science in favour of not accepting a theory, which is the single-most unifying theme in biology and encompasses all of life science. To hopefully remedy this, I will address the common religious dumbfvckery that makes them deny evolution:

"Life cannot come from non-life. You believe we came from rain hitting on the surface of a rock. You call that logical? pshhh sure"- GODisreal

Despite the complete lack of intelligence in this statement, the individual does bring about a common misconception about evolution. Evolution has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis. Abiogenisis is the creation of life from non-life. Evolution is the differential reproductive success of organisms. No matter how abiogenesis is done, it has absolutely zero effects on the validity of evolution.

"I'm ok with micro-evolution, change over time, but am not sold on macro-evolution"- Medic

"Evolutionary processes taking place in relatively small scales of space and time connect to larger-scale entities, processes, and events to produce the entire history of life from the smallest incremental evolutionary change to the vast spectrum running from the simplest bacteria on up through the complex fungi, plants, and animals--from, in other words, the small-scale changes of so-called microevolution on up through the larger-scaled changes often referred to as macroevolution. This tremendously diverse array of life, spanning at least 3.5 billion years of Earth history, is all connected by a pattern of nested sets of genetic and anatomical similarity that can rationally be explained only as the simple outcome of a natural shared descent with modification [pp. 62-3]."

http://www.straightdope.com...

The truth is that macroevolution is just microevolution on a grander scale. There is no scientific distinction between the two.

"Evolution contradicts the Bible"- Dumbfvcks.

Since evolution has nothing to say about abiogenisis, by accepting the theory of evolution, nothing is said about how life came to be from non-life or whether some kind of deistic creature was responsible for the creation of life.

As for the creation story, the original Bible does not mention the word "day" by name, and even if it did, there is no reason to say that the definition of the word would have held constant over 6 000 years. The original Bible mentions six distinct time periods, which is not in contradiction to evolution.

Hopefully, I'll add more as further dumbfvcks chime in. :)

I'll thank you to get my dumbfvckery correct next time. From here on out you'll be known as DK, Darwin's Knobslobber.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 6:42:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 6:34:10 PM, Mystical wrote:

This is false; a common idiotic attempt at refuting the evolutionary theory.:
I wasn't trying to refure it at all. Idiotic is believing in that nonsense.
A *theory* and a *scientific theory* are different, good man.:
Sure it is. Why, because you put scienctific in it? LOL
YOUR argument incorrectly insists that evolution is a THEORY. However, it is a scientific theory, not a theory.:
Just because you change the wording to include scientific, does not change the word theory.

It is no more provable than saying, "I am God." That is where evolution is focused upon, producing new thinking and faith in the eyes of people to think they will evolution into a Godlike state. I deny evolution because it simply is not plausable.

Why not? Have you any evidence to the contrary?:
I sure do, the One true God!
http://en.wikipedia.org...
A MASSIVE list of sources and further reading down there, by the way.

Then evolutionist say, "we did not say we evolved from rocks", well what was the big bang about then? What was the prior condition before the big bang?

Poor argument. The Big Bang theory and evolutionary theory explain two different things.:
Lol, like they are not together. How did life form then? That was a poor argument. Well, evolution is true but it didn;t come about by the big bang. HMM....OK.

We can over look the complete lack of intelligent thinking in this theory and just focus on its teaching. The teaching is not 150 years old but thousands of years old. This teaching is of the acient mystery schools and was told to Eve in the garden of Eden. Think, just where does this claim lead too? Man evolving into a superhuman and a God. This is a system of thought perperated by the bulk of scientific community and politics. It is pure propaganda and matter of fact, lies.

Psh, how is the evolutionary theory, mind you it's backed by much evidence, lies and your belief that an omnipotent god creating the universe and all life isn't?:
My God and beliefs are in fact backed by facts, you ignoring them, is not my problem, it is yours Dont blame me. Evolution is backed by lies, that sounds better.

We can see this hardcore indoctrine in this post here by knucks. He has been indoctrined and seeks all to be also indoctrined and what he has accepted without any real thought, seeks to ridicule others who do not accept it so easily and question it with real thought.

Not really indoctrination. Most atheists were theists of some sort before they changed position. So, if anything, theists (which includes you, I presume, unless your playing Devil's Advocate) are indoctrinated.:
Sure, you just proved the indoctrine, tey awere theist and then became athiest by scientific evolution. That is indoctrination my good fellow.

What facts are there in evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org...;

LOL, LOL, LOL, Are you serious. Maybe you are =(
TheAsylum
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 6:44:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
First off all!, Were not as sutpid as you clame. I graduaded from my basement homeschool with a 8.0 GPA and my momma said I was top off her class.
I got an gold star in sience and I learned my animal kingdom. Chek it:

Human kind
|--Adam/Eve--->Seth,Caine,Abel---->Enoch, uhm...Abra..no wait...Jesus....Isaia

Animal Kind
|___Hoses___bigger Horses___Dinosaurs (my favorut)___Alleygaters___modern fish.

(You just keep thinking we all fell off the turnip truck). ;-)
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 6:55:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If people just ignore Scotty, he might shut up. This was more for the non-too retarded religious individuals.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Mystical
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 6:56:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 6:42:06 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 10/2/2012 6:34:10 PM, Mystical wrote:

This is false; a common idiotic attempt at refuting the evolutionary theory.:
I wasn't trying to refure it at all. Idiotic is believing in that nonsense.

Yes, it's nonsense even though it has enormous evidence to support it, right... ?

A *theory* and a *scientific theory* are different, good man.:
Sure it is. Why, because you put scienctific in it? LOL

Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Scientific Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org...

YOUR argument incorrectly insists that evolution is a THEORY. However, it is a scientific theory, not a theory.:
Just because you change the wording to include scientific, does not change the word theory.

Theory and scientific theory have two differing meanings regardless of your pathetic attempts to ignore that.


It is no more provable than saying, "I am God." That is where evolution is focused upon, producing new thinking and faith in the eyes of people to think they will evolution into a Godlike state. I deny evolution because it simply is not plausable.

Why not? Have you any evidence to the contrary?:
I sure do, the One true God!

That the best you can do? That's not exactly evidence, now is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
A MASSIVE list of sources and further reading down there, by the way.

Then evolutionist say, "we did not say we evolved from rocks", well what was the big bang about then? What was the prior condition before the big bang?

Poor argument. The Big Bang theory and evolutionary theory explain two different things.:
Lol, like they are not together. How did life form then? That was a poor argument. Well, evolution is true but it didn;t come about by the big bang. HMM....OK.

They would go together to forumulate a logic explanation of the universe's existence and mankind's existence. However, the thread clearly specifies evolution, which is what I am attempting to remain on. I'dd gladly debate you over the logic/science of the Big Bang theory, if you decide to in a different forum.

We can over look the complete lack of intelligent thinking in this theory and just focus on its teaching. The teaching is not 150 years old but thousands of years old. This teaching is of the acient mystery schools and was told to Eve in the garden of Eden. Think, just where does this claim lead too? Man evolving into a superhuman and a God. This is a system of thought perperated by the bulk of scientific community and politics. It is pure propaganda and matter of fact, lies.

Psh, how is the evolutionary theory, mind you it's backed by much evidence, lies and your belief that an omnipotent god creating the universe and all life isn't?:
My God and beliefs are in fact backed by facts, you ignoring them, is not my problem, it is yours Dont blame me. Evolution is backed by lies, that sounds better.

We can see this hardcore indoctrine in this post here by knucks. He has been indoctrined and seeks all to be also indoctrined and what he has accepted without any real thought, seeks to ridicule others who do not accept it so easily and question it with real thought.

Not really indoctrination. Most atheists were theists of some sort before they changed position. So, if anything, theists (which includes you, I presume, unless your playing Devil's Advocate) are indoctrinated.:
Sure, you just proved the indoctrine, tey awere theist and then became athiest by scientific evolution. That is indoctrination my good fellow.

The majority of theists-turned-atheist would actually be due to study and knowledge on their part. Not some backwards societal peer-pressure, lol.


What facts are there in evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org...;

LOL, LOL, LOL, Are you serious. Maybe you are =(

Let's see your evidence for religion.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 7:03:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 6:35:46 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/2/2012 5:27:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It really gets annoying when religious people purposefully disregard science in favour of not accepting a theory, which is the single-most unifying theme in biology and encompasses all of life science. To hopefully remedy this, I will address the common religious dumbfvckery that makes them deny evolution:

"Life cannot come from non-life. You believe we came from rain hitting on the surface of a rock. You call that logical? pshhh sure"- GODisreal

Despite the complete lack of intelligence in this statement, the individual does bring about a common misconception about evolution. Evolution has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis. Abiogenisis is the creation of life from non-life. Evolution is the differential reproductive success of organisms. No matter how abiogenesis is done, it has absolutely zero effects on the validity of evolution.

"I'm ok with micro-evolution, change over time, but am not sold on macro-evolution"- Medic

"Evolutionary processes taking place in relatively small scales of space and time connect to larger-scale entities, processes, and events to produce the entire history of life from the smallest incremental evolutionary change to the vast spectrum running from the simplest bacteria on up through the complex fungi, plants, and animals--from, in other words, the small-scale changes of so-called microevolution on up through the larger-scaled changes often referred to as macroevolution. This tremendously diverse array of life, spanning at least 3.5 billion years of Earth history, is all connected by a pattern of nested sets of genetic and anatomical similarity that can rationally be explained only as the simple outcome of a natural shared descent with modification [pp. 62-3]."

http://www.straightdope.com...

The truth is that macroevolution is just microevolution on a grander scale. There is no scientific distinction between the two.

"Evolution contradicts the Bible"- Dumbfvcks.

Since evolution has nothing to say about abiogenisis, by accepting the theory of evolution, nothing is said about how life came to be from non-life or whether some kind of deistic creature was responsible for the creation of life.

As for the creation story, the original Bible does not mention the word "day" by name, and even if it did, there is no reason to say that the definition of the word would have held constant over 6 000 years. The original Bible mentions six distinct time periods, which is not in contradiction to evolution.

Hopefully, I'll add more as further dumbfvcks chime in. :)

I'll thank you to get my dumbfvckery correct next time. From here on out you'll be known as DK, Darwin's Knobslobber.

So... you're admitting that you are a hypocrite religious conformist?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 7:11:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 6:56:23 PM, Mystical wrote:
At 10/2/2012 6:42:06 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 10/2/2012 6:34:10 PM, Mystical wrote:

This is false; a common idiotic attempt at refuting the evolutionary theory.:
I wasn't trying to refure it at all. Idiotic is believing in that nonsense.

Yes, it's nonsense even though it has enormous evidence to support it, right... ?
Lol, if you say it does.

A *theory* and a *scientific theory* are different, good man.:
Sure it is. Why, because you put scienctific in it? LOL

Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Scientific Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org...:
Umm...Hmm...I seen it, I know it, Doesn't change. If it was such a proven and valid theory then why the word theory?

YOUR argument incorrectly insists that evolution is a THEORY. However, it is a scientific theory, not a theory.:
Just because you change the wording to include scientific, does not change the word theory.

Theory and scientific theory have two differing meanings regardless of your pathetic attempts to ignore that.:
No, what is patheitc is you not being able to comprehind that the word theory is still used and that science changes that word and meaning for their own benefit. You will believe anything but God.


It is no more provable than saying, "I am God." That is where evolution is focused upon, producing new thinking and faith in the eyes of people to think they will evolution into a Godlike state. I deny evolution because it simply is not plausable.

Why not? Have you any evidence to the contrary?:
I sure do, the One true God!

That the best you can do? That's not exactly evidence, now is it?:
Yeah, it is.LOL.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
A MASSIVE list of sources and further reading down there, by the way.

Then evolutionist say, "we did not say we evolved from rocks", well what was the big bang about then? What was the prior condition before the big bang?

Poor argument. The Big Bang theory and evolutionary theory explain two different things.:
That is a poor defence.
Lol, like they are not together. How did life form then? That was a poor argument. Well, evolution is true but it didn;t come about by the big bang. HMM....OK.


They would go together to forumulate a logic explanation of the universe's existence and mankind's existence. However, the thread clearly specifies evolution, which is what I am attempting to remain on. I'dd gladly debate you over the logic/science of the Big Bang theory, if you decide to in a different forum.:
Nice defence. How can you object to me saying it then? Stay on topic then and stop crying that I connect the big bang and evolution because they are connected and you know that.

We can over look the complete lack of intelligent thinking in this theory and just focus on its teaching. The teaching is not 150 years old but thousands of years old. This teaching is of the acient mystery schools and was told to Eve in the garden of Eden. Think, just where does this claim lead too? Man evolving into a superhuman and a God. This is a system of thought perperated by the bulk of scientific community and politics. It is pure propaganda and matter of fact, lies.

Psh, how is the evolutionary theory, mind you it's backed by much evidence, lies and your belief that an omnipotent god creating the universe and all life isn't?:
My God and beliefs are in fact backed by facts, you ignoring them, is not my problem, it is yours Dont blame me. Evolution is backed by lies, that sounds better.

We can see this hardcore indoctrine in this post here by knucks. He has been indoctrined and seeks all to be also indoctrined and what he has accepted without any real thought, seeks to ridicule others who do not accept it so easily and question it with real thought.

Not really indoctrination. Most atheists were theists of some sort before they changed position. So, if anything, theists (which includes you, I presume, unless your playing Devil's Advocate) are indoctrinated.:
Sure, you just proved the indoctrine, tey awere theist and then became athiest by scientific evolution. That is indoctrination my good fellow.

The majority of theists-turned-atheist would actually be due to study and knowledge on their part. Not some backwards societal peer-pressure, lol.:
Yep, tell yourself that. Im sure that you have been to places and tested evolution yourself and came to that conclusion on your own with out the doctrine of others.


What facts are there in evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org...;

LOL, LOL, LOL, Are you serious. Maybe you are =(

Let's see your evidence for religion.:
What evidence you want? Religion covers an array of fields.
TheAsylum
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 7:13:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 6:55:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
If people just ignore Scotty, he might shut up. This was more for the non-too retarded religious individuals.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 7:14:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 7:03:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/2/2012 6:35:46 PM, medic0506 wrote:

"I'm ok with micro-evolution, change over time, but am not sold on macro-evolution"- Medic

.

So... you're admitting that you are a hypocrite religious conformist?:

You, sir, are nothing more than a tool. Show how you know micro-evolution and marco-evolution are the same, exit time? Matter fact show us the massive evidence required to know macro-evolution even occurs. It is a scientific theory right, then it has a standard of being tested and pretty much proven by facts, right?
TheAsylum
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 7:15:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 7:11:32 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 10/2/2012 6:56:23 PM, Mystical wrote:
At 10/2/2012 6:42:06 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 10/2/2012 6:34:10 PM, Mystical wrote:

This is false; a common idiotic attempt at refuting the evolutionary theory.:
I wasn't trying to refure it at all. Idiotic is believing in that nonsense.

Yes, it's nonsense even though it has enormous evidence to support it, right... ?
Lol, if you say it does.

A *theory* and a *scientific theory* are different, good man.:
Sure it is. Why, because you put scienctific in it? LOL

Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Scientific Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org...:
Umm...Hmm...I seen it, I know it, Doesn't change. If it was such a proven and valid theory then why the word theory?

YOUR argument incorrectly insists that evolution is a THEORY. However, it is a scientific theory, not a theory.:
Just because you change the wording to include scientific, does not change the word theory.

Theory and scientific theory have two differing meanings regardless of your pathetic attempts to ignore that.:
No, what is patheitc is you not being able to comprehind that the word theory is still used and that science changes that word and meaning for their own benefit. You will believe anything but God.


It is no more provable than saying, "I am God." That is where evolution is focused upon, producing new thinking and faith in the eyes of people to think they will evolution into a Godlike state. I deny evolution because it simply is not plausable.

Why not? Have you any evidence to the contrary?:
I sure do, the One true God!

That the best you can do? That's not exactly evidence, now is it?:
Yeah, it is.LOL.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
A MASSIVE list of sources and further reading down there, by the way.

Then evolutionist say, "we did not say we evolved from rocks", well what was the big bang about then? What was the prior condition before the big bang?

Poor argument. The Big Bang theory and evolutionary theory explain two different things.:
That is a poor defence.
Lol, like they are not together. How did life form then? That was a poor argument. Well, evolution is true but it didn;t come about by the big bang. HMM....OK.


They would go together to forumulate a logic explanation of the universe's existence and mankind's existence. However, the thread clearly specifies evolution, which is what I am attempting to remain on. I'dd gladly debate you over the logic/science of the Big Bang theory, if you decide to in a different forum.:
Nice defence. How can you object to me saying it then? Stay on topic then and stop crying that I connect the big bang and evolution because they are connected and you know that.

We can over look the complete lack of intelligent thinking in this theory and just focus on its teaching. The teaching is not 150 years old but thousands of years old. This teaching is of the acient mystery schools and was told to Eve in the garden of Eden. Think, just where does this claim lead too? Man evolving into a superhuman and a God. This is a system of thought perperated by the bulk of scientific community and politics. It is pure propaganda and matter of fact, lies.

Psh, how is the evolutionary theory, mind you it's backed by much evidence, lies and your belief that an omnipotent god creating the universe and all life isn't?:
My God and beliefs are in fact backed by facts, you ignoring them, is not my problem, it is yours Dont blame me. Evolution is backed by lies, that sounds better.

We can see this hardcore indoctrine in this post here by knucks. He has been indoctrined and seeks all to be also indoctrined and what he has accepted without any real thought, seeks to ridicule others who do not accept it so easily and question it with real thought.

Not really indoctrination. Most atheists were theists of some sort before they changed position. So, if anything, theists (which includes you, I presume, unless your playing Devil's Advocate) are indoctrinated.:
Sure, you just proved the indoctrine, tey awere theist and then became athiest by scientific evolution. That is indoctrination my good fellow.

The majority of theists-turned-atheist would actually be due to study and knowledge on their part. Not some backwards societal peer-pressure, lol.:
Yep, tell yourself that. Im sure that you have been to places and tested evolution yourself and came to that conclusion on your own with out the doctrine of others.


What facts are there in evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org...;

LOL, LOL, LOL, Are you serious. Maybe you are =(

Let's see your evidence for religion.:
What evidence you want? Religion covers an array of fields.

I think Mr. Knuckle wants to limit this discussion to macro and microbiological evolution. It would behoove you to start drawing evidence from field experts.
Start here: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org...
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 7:16:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 7:13:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/2/2012 6:55:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
If people just ignore Scotty, he might shut up. This was more for the non-too retarded religious individuals.

Buddy, you tell yourself that! You can not challenege my ability to see straight through that BS called evolution and LORDKNUCKLE PROPAGANDA! Keep telling yourself that.
TheAsylum
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 7:20:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Lordknuckle,

You support this quote, "Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks~ Scotty"

But you fail to think about how dumb it is to post that a dumb quote. You are a atheist. Therefore you think the Big Bang created life or am I wrong?
If I am right then you indeed think we came from a big ole rock. Am I missing something? Therefore then you look stupid by posting that when in fact it is true.
TheAsylum
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 7:22:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 7:03:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/2/2012 6:35:46 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/2/2012 5:27:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It really gets annoying when religious people purposefully disregard science in favour of not accepting a theory, which is the single-most unifying theme in biology and encompasses all of life science. To hopefully remedy this, I will address the common religious dumbfvckery that makes them deny evolution:

"Life cannot come from non-life. You believe we came from rain hitting on the surface of a rock. You call that logical? pshhh sure"- GODisreal

Despite the complete lack of intelligence in this statement, the individual does bring about a common misconception about evolution. Evolution has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis. Abiogenisis is the creation of life from non-life. Evolution is the differential reproductive success of organisms. No matter how abiogenesis is done, it has absolutely zero effects on the validity of evolution.

"I'm ok with micro-evolution, change over time, but am not sold on macro-evolution"- Medic

"Evolutionary processes taking place in relatively small scales of space and time connect to larger-scale entities, processes, and events to produce the entire history of life from the smallest incremental evolutionary change to the vast spectrum running from the simplest bacteria on up through the complex fungi, plants, and animals--from, in other words, the small-scale changes of so-called microevolution on up through the larger-scaled changes often referred to as macroevolution. This tremendously diverse array of life, spanning at least 3.5 billion years of Earth history, is all connected by a pattern of nested sets of genetic and anatomical similarity that can rationally be explained only as the simple outcome of a natural shared descent with modification [pp. 62-3]."

http://www.straightdope.com...

The truth is that macroevolution is just microevolution on a grander scale. There is no scientific distinction between the two.

"Evolution contradicts the Bible"- Dumbfvcks.

Since evolution has nothing to say about abiogenisis, by accepting the theory of evolution, nothing is said about how life came to be from non-life or whether some kind of deistic creature was responsible for the creation of life.

As for the creation story, the original Bible does not mention the word "day" by name, and even if it did, there is no reason to say that the definition of the word would have held constant over 6 000 years. The original Bible mentions six distinct time periods, which is not in contradiction to evolution.

Hopefully, I'll add more as further dumbfvcks chime in. :)

I'll thank you to get my dumbfvckery correct next time. From here on out you'll be known as DK, Darwin's Knobslobber.

So... you're admitting that you are a hypocrite religious conformist?

You're going to make me fill your thread with Dr. Dino vids, aren't you??
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 7:28:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 7:20:03 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
@Lordknuckle,

You support this quote, "Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks~ Scotty"

But you fail to think about how dumb it is to post that a dumb quote. You are a atheist. Therefore you think the Big Bang created life or am I wrong?
If I am right then you indeed think we came from a big ole rock. Am I missing something? Therefore then you look stupid by posting that when in fact it is true.

Well, in all fairness....we Christians also think we came from a rock. After all...Christ is the chief cornerstone. (Badda bum bum)
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 7:31:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 7:22:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/2/2012 7:03:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/2/2012 6:35:46 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/2/2012 5:27:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It really gets annoying when religious people purposefully disregard science in favour of not accepting a theory, which is the single-most unifying theme in biology and encompasses all of life science. To hopefully remedy this, I will address the common religious dumbfvckery that makes them deny evolution:

"Life cannot come from non-life. You believe we came from rain hitting on the surface of a rock. You call that logical? pshhh sure"- GODisreal

Despite the complete lack of intelligence in this statement, the individual does bring about a common misconception about evolution. Evolution has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis. Abiogenisis is the creation of life from non-life. Evolution is the differential reproductive success of organisms. No matter how abiogenesis is done, it has absolutely zero effects on the validity of evolution.

"I'm ok with micro-evolution, change over time, but am not sold on macro-evolution"- Medic

"Evolutionary processes taking place in relatively small scales of space and time connect to larger-scale entities, processes, and events to produce the entire history of life from the smallest incremental evolutionary change to the vast spectrum running from the simplest bacteria on up through the complex fungi, plants, and animals--from, in other words, the small-scale changes of so-called microevolution on up through the larger-scaled changes often referred to as macroevolution. This tremendously diverse array of life, spanning at least 3.5 billion years of Earth history, is all connected by a pattern of nested sets of genetic and anatomical similarity that can rationally be explained only as the simple outcome of a natural shared descent with modification [pp. 62-3]."

http://www.straightdope.com...

The truth is that macroevolution is just microevolution on a grander scale. There is no scientific distinction between the two.

"Evolution contradicts the Bible"- Dumbfvcks.

Since evolution has nothing to say about abiogenisis, by accepting the theory of evolution, nothing is said about how life came to be from non-life or whether some kind of deistic creature was responsible for the creation of life.

As for the creation story, the original Bible does not mention the word "day" by name, and even if it did, there is no reason to say that the definition of the word would have held constant over 6 000 years. The original Bible mentions six distinct time periods, which is not in contradiction to evolution.

Hopefully, I'll add more as further dumbfvcks chime in. :)

I'll thank you to get my dumbfvckery correct next time. From here on out you'll be known as DK, Darwin's Knobslobber.

So... you're admitting that you are a hypocrite religious conformist?

You're going to make me fill your thread with Dr. Dino vids, aren't you??

Eric runs the ministry now. The creation minute videos are pretty neat.
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 7:32:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't see why Christians debate this point when 40% have already accepted evolution, and the Catholic Church accepted it back in 1950! Science will always win out over pseudoscience and unfalsifiable hypotheses, so it's only a matter of time.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 7:33:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 7:32:00 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I don't see why Christians debate this point when 40% have already accepted evolution, and the Catholic Church accepted it back in 1950! Science will always win out over pseudoscience and unfalsifiable hypotheses, so it's only a matter of time.

Yea....that's a fail statement. If science ever proves the creation of the universe, I'll eat a broom...broad end first.
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 7:39:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 7:32:00 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I don't see why Christians debate this point when 40% have already accepted evolution, and the Catholic Church accepted it back in 1950! Science will always win out over pseudoscience and unfalsifiable hypotheses, so it's only a matter of time.

You are right! It is only a matter of time before the world is controlled by those who wish to fully deny the creator and accept the lie instead of the truth. This thread shows this. The Catholic church accepts just about anything but Biblical doctrine.
TheAsylum
Mystical
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 7:42:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 7:39:09 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 10/2/2012 7:32:00 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I don't see why Christians debate this point when 40% have already accepted evolution, and the Catholic Church accepted it back in 1950! Science will always win out over pseudoscience and unfalsifiable hypotheses, so it's only a matter of time.

You are right! It is only a matter of time before the world is controlled by those who wish to fully deny the creator and accept the lie instead of the truth. This thread shows this. The Catholic church accepts just about anything but Biblical doctrine.

There most likely isn't a creator/god/deity. And yes, hopefully, in a few hundred years the majority of the world will accept a god does not exist. :)
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 7:47:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 7:42:16 PM, Mystical wrote:
At 10/2/2012 7:39:09 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 10/2/2012 7:32:00 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I don't see why Christians debate this point when 40% have already accepted evolution, and the Catholic Church accepted it back in 1950! Science will always win out over pseudoscience and unfalsifiable hypotheses, so it's only a matter of time.

You are right! It is only a matter of time before the world is controlled by those who wish to fully deny the creator and accept the lie instead of the truth. This thread shows this. The Catholic church accepts just about anything but Biblical doctrine.

There most likely isn't a creator/god/deity. And yes, hopefully, in a few hundred years the majority of the world will accept a god does not exist. :)

No, they will accept that they are Gods. They will say that they have evolved into Godhood. Ever think were evolution leads and its point? Evolving into a superhuman, a God have you. Also notice you said, "most likely isnt", did not say isnt or couldnt because you cant and be logicial.
TheAsylum
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 7:48:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 7:33:07 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
At 10/2/2012 7:32:00 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I don't see why Christians debate this point when 40% have already accepted evolution, and the Catholic Church accepted it back in 1950! Science will always win out over pseudoscience and unfalsifiable hypotheses, so it's only a matter of time.

Yea....that's a fail statement. If science ever proves the creation of the universe, I'll eat a broom...broad end first.

Who needs proof when they can just teach the most widely accepted theory. Doesn't matter whether it can be tested or not, as long as the answer isn't God they'll buy it. They'll never demand a falsifiable answer for the universe' creation, like they do for God.
Mystical
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 7:53:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 7:47:52 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 10/2/2012 7:42:16 PM, Mystical wrote:
At 10/2/2012 7:39:09 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 10/2/2012 7:32:00 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I don't see why Christians debate this point when 40% have already accepted evolution, and the Catholic Church accepted it back in 1950! Science will always win out over pseudoscience and unfalsifiable hypotheses, so it's only a matter of time.

You are right! It is only a matter of time before the world is controlled by those who wish to fully deny the creator and accept the lie instead of the truth. This thread shows this. The Catholic church accepts just about anything but Biblical doctrine.

There most likely isn't a creator/god/deity. And yes, hopefully, in a few hundred years the majority of the world will accept a god does not exist. :)

No, they will accept that they are Gods. They will say that they have evolved into Godhood. Ever think were evolution leads and its point? Evolving into a superhuman, a God have you. Also notice you said, "most likely isnt", did not say isnt or couldnt because you cant and be logicial.

I don't think any one individual would claim that are godlike in the future. Large corporations and governments may, but even that's quite a small possibility. *shrugs*

And yes, I said "most likely isn't" to describe my position on the matter (agnostic atheist), as there is no possible way for me (or you) to ACTUALLY know whether a god/s exists or not. However, due to strong arguments and evidence for opposing claims, and a lack of evidence for religion, I, being entirely rational, can assume a god/s does not exist. Until there is evidence to the contrary, I will retain my position.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 8:45:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 7:11:32 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 10/2/2012 6:56:23 PM, Mystical wrote:
At 10/2/2012 6:42:06 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 10/2/2012 6:34:10 PM, Mystical wrote:

This is false; a common idiotic attempt at refuting the evolutionary theory.:
I wasn't trying to refure it at all. Idiotic is believing in that nonsense.

Yes, it's nonsense even though it has enormous evidence to support it, right... ?
Lol, if you say it does.

A *theory* and a *scientific theory* are different, good man.:
Sure it is. Why, because you put scienctific in it? LOL

Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Scientific Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org...:
Umm...Hmm...I seen it, I know it, Doesn't change. If it was such a proven and valid theory then why the word theory?

Because scientific theories and scientific laws are explain two very different things.

Scientific theories use facts to explain natural phenomena, like Evolution, BBT, and Gravity.

Scientific laws always apply under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.
YOUR argument incorrectly insists that evolution is a THEORY. However, it is a scientific theory, not a theory.:
Just because you change the wording to include scientific, does not change the word theory.

The 'theory' in 'scientific theory' does not have the same sense as the laymen expression of 'theory'.
Theory and scientific theory have two differing meanings regardless of your pathetic attempts to ignore that.:
No, what is patheitc is you not being able to comprehind that the word theory is still used and that science changes that word and meaning for their own benefit. You will believe anything but God.

For their own benefit? No, it's just the best way they can set their terminology without having to find some obscure word in the back of a dictionary. What would you rather have us call scientific theories? 'Scientific truthful occurrences' perhaps?

I will accept the validity of a claim as long as if meets the strict scientific standards we have set forth. I will not believe in any God until physical manifestation of God(s) is presented.

It is no more provable than saying, "I am God." That is where evolution is focused upon, producing new thinking and faith in the eyes of people to think they will evolution into a Godlike state. I deny evolution because it simply is not plausable.

Why not? Have you any evidence to the contrary?:
I sure do, the One true God!

That the best you can do? That's not exactly evidence, now is it?:
Yeah, it is.LOL.

No, it's a bare assertion. Please, try to limit yourself to formal logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
A MASSIVE list of sources and further reading down there, by the way.

Then evolutionist say, "we did not say we evolved from rocks", well what was the big bang about then? What was the prior condition before the big bang?

Poor argument. The Big Bang theory and evolutionary theory explain two different things.:
That is a poor defence.
Lol, like they are not together. How did life form then? That was a poor argument. Well, evolution is true but it didn;t come about by the big bang. HMM....OK.

Evolution does not come out of the BBT, evolution comes out of life. Life originally came out of abiogenesis. The materials (and are entire planet, for that matter) required for abiogenesis came out of the BBT.

They would go together to forumulate a logic explanation of the universe's existence and mankind's existence. However, the thread clearly specifies evolution, which is what I am attempting to remain on. I'dd gladly debate you over the logic/science of the Big Bang theory, if you decide to in a different forum.:
Nice defence. How can you object to me saying it then? Stay on topic then and stop crying that I connect the big bang and evolution because they are connected and you know that.
In the chronological plot of life in the Universe, they are connected.
Are they literally connected, however? No.

If deities exist and created the first life on Earth, then evolution would still happen because its the inherent nature of biology.
We can over look the complete lack of intelligent thinking in this theory and just focus on its teaching. The teaching is not 150 years old but thousands of years old. This teaching is of the acient mystery schools and was told to Eve in the garden of Eden. Think, just where does this claim lead too? Man evolving into a superhuman and a God. This is a system of thought perperated by the bulk of scientific community and politics. It is pure propaganda and matter of fact, lies.

Lol, you still believe God put two white people in the jungle? Then allegedly, they fvcked and now we have black people, oriental people, middle-eastern people, Indian people, Native-American people....and for the huge amount of inbreeding, very few birth defects per capita. It seems so plausible!

To be honest, all you spout is conjecture. It's really dishonest and it really says something about your message.
Psh, how is the evolutionary theory, mind you it's backed by much evidence, lies and your belief that an omnipotent god creating the universe and all life isn't?:
My God and beliefs are in fact backed by facts, you ignoring them, is not my problem, it is yours Dont blame me. Evolution is backed by lies, that sounds better.

I'm waiting for the 'facts' that the entire scientific community apparently didn't get the memo on.
We can see this hardcore indoctrine in this post here by knucks. He has been indoctrined and seeks all to be also indoctrined and what he has accepted without any real thought, seeks to ridicule others who do not accept it so easily and question it with real thought.

Not really indoctrination. Most atheists were theists of some sort before they changed position. So, if anything, theists (which includes you, I presume, unless your playing Devil's Advocate) are indoctrinated.:
One cannot indoctrinate himself/herself. Furthermore, atheism births from critical analysis and thought, in which indoctrination calls for beliefs to be believed uncritically.
Sure, you just proved the indoctrine, tey awere theist and then became athiest by scientific evolution. That is indoctrination my good fellow.

The majority of theists-turned-atheist would actually be due to study and knowledge on their part. Not some backwards societal peer-pressure, lol.:
Yep, tell yourself that. Im sure that you have been to places and tested evolution yourself and came to that conclusion on your own with out the doctrine of others.


What facts are there in evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org...;

LOL, LOL, LOL, Are you serious. Maybe you are =(

Let's see your evidence for religion.:
What evidence you want? Religion covers an array of fields.
You mean your religion?

You'll dismiss all other non-Christian 'theistical evidence' as folly.
turn down for h'what
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 9:24:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 7:15:30 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
At 10/2/2012 7:11:32 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 10/2/2012 6:56:23 PM, Mystical wrote:
At 10/2/2012 6:42:06 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 10/2/2012 6:34:10 PM, Mystical wrote:

This is false; a common idiotic attempt at refuting the evolutionary theory.:
I wasn't trying to refure it at all. Idiotic is believing in that nonsense.

Yes, it's nonsense even though it has enormous evidence to support it, right... ?
Lol, if you say it does.

A *theory* and a *scientific theory* are different, good man.:
Sure it is. Why, because you put scienctific in it? LOL

Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Scientific Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org...:
Umm...Hmm...I seen it, I know it, Doesn't change. If it was such a proven and valid theory then why the word theory?

YOUR argument incorrectly insists that evolution is a THEORY. However, it is a scientific theory, not a theory.:
Just because you change the wording to include scientific, does not change the word theory.

Theory and scientific theory have two differing meanings regardless of your pathetic attempts to ignore that.:
No, what is patheitc is you not being able to comprehind that the word theory is still used and that science changes that word and meaning for their own benefit. You will believe anything but God.


It is no more provable than saying, "I am God." That is where evolution is focused upon, producing new thinking and faith in the eyes of people to think they will evolution into a Godlike state. I deny evolution because it simply is not plausable.

Why not? Have you any evidence to the contrary?:
I sure do, the One true God!

That the best you can do? That's not exactly evidence, now is it?:
Yeah, it is.LOL.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
A MASSIVE list of sources and further reading down there, by the way.

Then evolutionist say, "we did not say we evolved from rocks", well what was the big bang about then? What was the prior condition before the big bang?

Poor argument. The Big Bang theory and evolutionary theory explain two different things.:
That is a poor defence.
Lol, like they are not together. How did life form then? That was a poor argument. Well, evolution is true but it didn;t come about by the big bang. HMM....OK.


They would go together to forumulate a logic explanation of the universe's existence and mankind's existence. However, the thread clearly specifies evolution, which is what I am attempting to remain on. I'dd gladly debate you over the logic/science of the Big Bang theory, if you decide to in a different forum.:
Nice defence. How can you object to me saying it then? Stay on topic then and stop crying that I connect the big bang and evolution because they are connected and you know that.

We can over look the complete lack of intelligent thinking in this theory and just focus on its teaching. The teaching is not 150 years old but thousands of years old. This teaching is of the acient mystery schools and was told to Eve in the garden of Eden. Think, just where does this claim lead too? Man evolving into a superhuman and a God. This is a system of thought perperated by the bulk of scientific community and politics. It is pure propaganda and matter of fact, lies.

Psh, how is the evolutionary theory, mind you it's backed by much evidence, lies and your belief that an omnipotent god creating the universe and all life isn't?:
My God and beliefs are in fact backed by facts, you ignoring them, is not my problem, it is yours Dont blame me. Evolution is backed by lies, that sounds better.

We can see this hardcore indoctrine in this post here by knucks. He has been indoctrined and seeks all to be also indoctrined and what he has accepted without any real thought, seeks to ridicule others who do not accept it so easily and question it with real thought.

Not really indoctrination. Most atheists were theists of some sort before they changed position. So, if anything, theists (which includes you, I presume, unless your playing Devil's Advocate) are indoctrinated.:
Sure, you just proved the indoctrine, tey awere theist and then became athiest by scientific evolution. That is indoctrination my good fellow.

The majority of theists-turned-atheist would actually be due to study and knowledge on their part. Not some backwards societal peer-pressure, lol.:
Yep, tell yourself that. Im sure that you have been to places and tested evolution yourself and came to that conclusion on your own with out the doctrine of others.


What facts are there in evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org...;

LOL, LOL, LOL, Are you serious. Maybe you are =(

Let's see your evidence for religion.:
What evidence you want? Religion covers an array of fields.

I think Mr. Knuckle wants to limit this discussion to macro and microbiological evolution. It would behoove you to start drawing evidence from field experts.
Start here: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org...

One of your whopping four dissenters is a mathematician, the other is an oceanographer, and your last scientist equates evolution with abiogenisis. There is only one individual from the biology field who from the intro paragraph isn't a complete idiot. Compare that to the 99.98% of scientists who do accept evolution.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."