What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: flyingfish
There is no creation/evolution controversy, it's purely a creationist fallacy. This false fabrication is the fundamentalist theologies that creationist insists that certain contrary-to-fact false claims must be true or else God either does not exist or is not worthy of worship and we should all become atheists. This is why so many of your children, raised on those false teachings, are becoming atheists upon discovering the deception.

How ironic is it that fundamentalism and its reliance on "creation science" is a major cause of atheism. Evolution or science does not conflict in any way with Divine Creation. But rather fundamentalism and "creation science" which teach lies about how the world must be in order for God to exist.

....and thats your opinion based on ignorance, it doesnt make it right.
Creation science is a major cause of......., I know how about some evidence, bet you didnt expect you would have to justify what you said.


Hey you can shut me up with some good solid sound evidence, it goes begging

a reply to: borntowatch

Why don't you post some creation science.

Break the mold and be the first ever in the history of mankind to produce evidence for young earth creation theory.

You sit here for months on end ignoring and rejecting everything anybody says counter to it. It could only mean you are either uneducated in facts and never came to an informed opinion. Or, the alternative.. the facts support your point of view which is YEC. I would just love to see YOUR evidence for once. I mean.. it's only been half a year or so since I've seen you so stubbornly reject the scientific consensus. What do you have to back up your position? I won't accept the Bible, unless you're willing to extend the debate to why your God is the right God over every other claimed deity ever. I will (unlike you) accept walls of text, and links to scientific peer reviewed papers (unlike you). As you can see, I will be much easier to convince you know what you're talking about. Since I'm willing to read and form an objective opinion. Thanks in advance. I look forward to the evidence you provide for a YEC/young universe model.

i have several questions for : BORNTOWATCH :

1 - what country did you go to school in [ plus state if USA ]

2 - what decade did you attend school

3 - what type of school did you attend

4 - what was the religion of your parents

whoo hoo - young earth creationism ???????????????

i have just one question- please explain using the creationist model - the following :

the cheshire plain salt beds [ UK ]

a reply to: borntowatch

Hey you can shut me up with some good solid sound evidence, it goes begging

Why would I shut you up? You and your agents are responsible for one of best anti-religious campaigns in recent history.
I should be congratulating you..

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Prezbo369

I'm sorry to say this, but you're all to blame for borntowatch and the nonsense he's/she's been spewing here.

Keep feeding a troll and they keep coming back for more.

As has been said, the public flaying of borntowatch is one of the greatest tools against ignorance that this forum has discovered in recent times.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: borntowatch

Why don't you post some creation science.

Break the mold and be the first ever in the history of mankind to produce evidence for young earth creation theory.

You sit here for months on end ignoring and rejecting everything anybody says counter to it. It could only mean you are either uneducated in facts and never came to an informed opinion. Or, the alternative.. the facts support your point of view which is YEC. I would just love to see YOUR evidence for once. I mean.. it's only been half a year or so since I've seen you so stubbornly reject the scientific consensus. What do you have to back up your position? I won't accept the Bible, unless you're willing to extend the debate to why your God is the right God over every other claimed deity ever. I will (unlike you) accept walls of text, and links to scientific peer reviewed papers (unlike you). As you can see, I will be much easier to convince you know what you're talking about. Since I'm willing to read and form an objective opinion. Thanks in advance. I look forward to the evidence you provide for a YEC/young universe model.

I am not here to sell you anything, I never created this post to push my beliefs, I wanted answers to the OP and have yet to see any.
Just people turning the issue into a biological evolution debate because the evidence for the other issues doesnt exist. Yes lots of theory but no substance.

I am not justifying my beliefs or standing on a foundation of empirical proof like the evolutionists here claim to be.

Mine is just like your beliefs, faith based.


When i was a kid we would tie bacon to a piece of string and feed it to a duck, pretty soon you would have a line of ducks

a reply to: Prezbo369

How's it been working out so far you think?

originally posted by: borntowatch

I am not justifying my beliefs or standing on a foundation of empirical proof like the evolutionists here claim to be.

Mine is just like your beliefs, faith based.

That leaves you in quite a pickle doesn't it??? Let's assume you're correct and that Evolutionary Science is completely invalid and just a bunch of clever theoretical fantasy and lies. That would mean that those who follow it and believe it to be true really have nothing else but "their belief" to stand by. Which is all you have too. Yet for some reason you feel your "belief" is valid and theirs is not.

This makes you the same as them in every respect by your own principles. You have no ground on which to stand upon or demand proof of anything since you demand no proof for yourself either. Having only a belief in Evolution with no evidence at all still makes it every bit as valid as your belief in Creationism.

What else is there to say at this point???

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Prezbo369

How's it been working out so far you think?

Pretty good, he/she and his/her arguments and logic are not coming across all that well wouldn't you say?

If you were on the fence or undecided on this issue, who do you think would turn you off the most?

originally posted by: borntowatch
Here is a list
The Different Types Of Evolution
The following types of Evolution are described:

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.

Yes I agree with Micro evolution.

1=3
2=6
4=>5
I just don't get it I guess? But imho with the big bang 1, 2, 3, & 4 started, you agree with 6 and there are species adapting to their environment: proven, so 5 is a empiric fact.
How can you believe in creationism? If that is your basis for your belief?

Hey, Unicorns are real, because I say so. I have proof, here:

originally posted by: borntowatch
I am not here to sell you anything, I never created this post to push my beliefs,

False.

I wanted answers to the OP and have yet to see any.

False.

the evidence for the other issues doesnt exist. Yes lots of theory but no substance.

False.

Mine is just like your beliefs, faith based.

False.

It's remarkable how creationism coincides so well with the dictionary definition of delusion. So well, they could be interchangeable terms. A fixed and rigid belief that is always devoid of genuine evidence and based on claims in ancient folklore that have failed 100%, that we know of so far. Yet completely impervious to reason.

Delusion.

a rigid system of beliefs with which a person is preoccupied and to which the person firmly holds, despite the logical absurdity of the beliefs and a lack of supporting evidence.

www.britannica.com...

noun.

4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact:

dictionary.reference.com...

a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated

b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary;

www.merriam-webster.com...

originally posted by: mOjOm
That leaves you in quite a pickle doesn't it??? Let's assume you're correct and that Evolutionary Science is completely invalid and just a bunch of clever theoretical fantasy and lies. That would mean that those who follow it and believe it to be true really have nothing else but "their belief" to stand by. Which is all you have too. Yet for some reason you feel your "belief" is valid and theirs is not.

This makes you the same as them in every respect by your own principles. You have no ground on which to stand upon or demand proof of anything since you demand no proof for yourself either. Having only a belief in Evolution with no evidence at all still makes it every bit as valid as your belief in Creationism.

What else is there to say at this point???

Wow moje, you are a deep thinker, or not.

I would ask for empirical evidence and see whats on offer.
What you got...questions, wrong sales pitch around here.

It doesnt make me the same as them, makes them the same as me, thanks for clarifying my point, thought I had done that though....thought that was my point

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
It's remarkable how creationism coincides so well with the dictionary definition of delusion. So well, they could be interchangeable terms. A fixed and rigid belief that is always devoid of genuine evidence and based on claims in ancient folklore that have failed 100%, that we know of so far. Yet completely impervious to reason.

Delusion.

a rigid system of beliefs with which a person is preoccupied and to which the person firmly holds, despite the logical absurdity of the beliefs and a lack of supporting evidence.

www.britannica.com...

noun.

4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact:

dictionary.reference.com...

a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated

b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary;

www.merriam-webster.com...

Thats so clever but lacking of any evidence, its a joke I get it but its so banal, it offers nothing...again.

If thats your evidence then people must read this and sigh

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: borntowatch
I am not here to sell you anything, I never created this post to push my beliefs,

False.

I wanted answers to the OP and have yet to see any.

False.

the evidence for the other issues doesnt exist. Yes lots of theory but no substance.

False.

Mine is just like your beliefs, faith based.

False.

Even I starred that Barcs because ...well quite frankly it is the best evidence you have posted, more opinion,based on your opinion and now you are showing signs of the baselessness of your faith.

Your one word answers are as deep and valid as the links and walls of texts you have previously posted
Well done you, finally showing some depth.

originally posted by: Peeple

Hey, Unicorns are real, because I say so. I have proof, here:

Wow be careful, the bible states there were unicorns and we know thats impossible, imagine an animal with only one horn that doesnt have a fossil record, impossible.

originally posted by: borntowatch

Thats so clever but lacking of any evidence, its a joke I get it but its so banal, it offers nothing...again.

Not really a joke, we're all deluded in some way or other (62 pages of evidence so far). Lots of people think they are more attractive, fatter, thinner etc than they really are. With some it can be a tad more obvious because it covers the entirety of existence!. lol.

Oh, sorry, you meant evidence for evolution !?!?

Got none, didn't happen that way. Old man in sky>>>"fiat lux!">>>nekminit>>>photons. Same with everything else basically, including every biological species, just popped up out a' nowhere fully formed, as they are now. Happens all the time.

If thats your evidence then people must read this and sigh

Short of offering you a 20 million year old scientist, who has it documented, nothing will convince you. The problem there is, we know scientifically (bible) that 969 years is about the limit.


Yes, I can almost hear them sigh.

a reply to: Cypress

Science is being corrected yet again....

According to the latest news available on Mr Dawkins's website, the theory of evolution is now being expanded to include non-living material as well not just biodiversity.

MIT research takes Darwin’s idea of evolution, and runs with it; the theory being presented is that life itself evolves from non-living matter naturally.

So according to the geniuses behind this research — you are wrong? as well as many other people in this thread.

Make your minds up people!!

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Peeple

Hey, Unicorns are real, because I say so. I have proof, here:

Wow be careful, the bible states there were unicorns and we know thats impossible, imagine an animal with only one horn that doesnt have a fossil record, impossible.

The King James version of the bible is the translation that uses the word "unicorn". In the original Hebrew text, the description is only of a one-horned, untameable, and beastly animal. That could be a rhinoceros.

The people who penned the King James translation could have been simply using the word "unicorn" out of ignorance for the existence of rhinos to most 16th-century English people, and instead used English mythical creature name "unicorn", which connote s horse-like creature.

It should be noted that older Greeks and Roman description of an animal they called the oryx (on which the English mythical version of the unicorn is thought to have its roots, via the Roman influence on the British isles) was more rhino-like. They called it a horned ox, and the description seemed to fit that of a rhino than of a horse-like creature.

So it seems very possible that the original Hebrew text was mistranslated by the King James translators into "unicorn" when it should have been "rhinoceros".