Evolution is a farce: Evidence

a reply to: Shoujikina

You would need for a first living thing, millions, perhaps hundreds of thousands at a minimum, perhaps millions at a maximum, of lipids .....

blah blah blah.

So god can be a alien super intelligent scientist millions of year more advanced than us. It doesnt necessarily make the bible true.

a reply to: Noinden

You are really hostile neighbor, you need to chill out. You are dealing with something way above your pay grade here, and its showing.

I try not to be too condescending to young earth creationists, but that is pure GOLD...I like it

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: BlackManINC

Question to the creationists, inspired by my wife (veterinarian) :

How do you explain the development of antibiotics resistant strain of bacteria’s after a couple of generations ?

Seriously....
and your wife's a veterinarian.
No offence but seriously I wouldnt let her near my pets.

I hope you both know you can look for an answer online, study it, its not hard to find the reason.
Thats basic biology

I think that question was used as an illustration of evolution happening and being observed rather than a specific answer being required.

Yeah, its evolution assumed, reality is its not evolution at all, its de-evolution

My issue is that there is no answer required from anyone, some accept evolution even when its not.

A veterinarian who should have studied biology doesnt know or has been taught a lie about evolution and the answer is hidden or not required

Whats wrong with truthful answers explaining why

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: BlackManINC

Question to the creationists, inspired by my wife (veterinarian) :

How do you explain the development of antibiotics resistant strain of bacteria’s after a couple of generations ?

Seriously....
and your wife's a veterinarian.
No offence but seriously I wouldnt let her near my pets.

I hope you both know you can look for an answer online, study it, its not hard to find the reason.
Thats basic biology

I think that question was used as an illustration of evolution happening and being observed rather than a specific answer being required.

At least someone who gets the point ...
So, borntowatch, since I'm born to laugh, why don't you give us your best shot at that one ?
How does that simple biological process confirms/deny any of the arguments presented here ?
Please explain us ... should you be able to.

No thanks
I am not selling creation, trying to persuade you.
Why dont you type in google, antibiotics and evolution creation debate and learn something for yourself.

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: borntowatch

oh, so biology, which is a science, is ok?

what is this, science is only ok, if it allows you to belittle people?

Dont you think that comment is a bit banal, nigh childish.

Science was ignored in pagan Europe, trees were worshiped, the weather was prayed to.
Christianity after the Protestant break away lead the Western world to start public education and also started the scientific explosion. It was lead and founded by the church.

So let me be clear, Biology is a science as maths is a science, astrology is not a science as evolution is not a science.
Evolution is a pseudo science, do you understand that?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

The ad homenin was strong with this one, when the term "heathen" was thrown at us, it was clear that tone was really a nice to have to him (?)

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

This points out to me to one of the many paradoxes that proves literal interpretation of the sacred texts to be wrong.

The topic of creationism is only relevant to the old testament. But ultimately, the goal, what guides the Christians mainly, is the life of Jesus - the new Testament. The ancient testament is actually inherited from the Jews. And is mostly relevant to them. They who, mainly, didn't choose the endorse Jesus as the messiah.

The Genesis first accounts the creation of, not just man but, the whole universe.
It is stated there that God created the whole thing. But this is only if you happen to read the English translated version of the Bible. Remember, it's inherited from the Jews and, in the original Jewish version, it is actually 'Elohim' who created the whole thing.

Elohim is ... a plural. Yes, I know, it's embarrassing...
It actually means 'the lordS'. A single lord would have been 'Eloha'.
So, this pillar of monotheism called the Bible, may well have to deal with a huge mistranslation from the very beginning about the exact amount of divine entities involved in the process.
And you want to serve us pseudo-science out of it ?

But let's not bother with these small inconveniences, as I said, this is only relevant if you plan to make literal interpretation of things. And what matters the most for the Christians is Jesus anyway.

The old testament instruct among other things, not to perform idolatry.
The new testament, tells the life of Jesus.
How do you define idolatry ?
How do you define the relationship of the Christians towards Jesus ?

Jesus comes to deliver us a message about the universality of perfectly respectable human values.
He is really up against :
- The scribes and the Pharisees, the hypocrites that hides themselves behind the rigorous interpretation of things.
- The merchants in the temple, for turning the house of God into a marketplace.
- The Romans, representatives of Imperialism of the time.

As everyone could decently expect from a divine messiah, Jesus delivers a series miraculous achievements to prove his point.
Feeds the hungry, heals the sick, cures the blind ... very respectable actions.
He also walked on water - probably just for the show.

Did he really manage to make all those miraculous things ?
That's not even relevant to know for sure. He shows us what the son of God - the guy with the absolute power down here - does with his super-abilities.
He delivers us a nice allegorical message about what the guys with power should be after in this world.

Jesus could probably have used his superpowers to subdue the entire Roman empire if he wished.
But he didn't. He gathered with the crowd and delivered his message peacefully. With the sole exception of the merchants in the temple incident.
If you consider the Bible as an historical account, this was nothing but the very first financial crash of a long series. And that's also from that moment that Jesus really started to get into trouble.

And, as every atheist knows, he ended up on a cross. This is a cynical statement towards them in order to demonstrate the universality of Christ. You don't even need to endorse the thing in order to know most of it.
Crucified, died, resurrected.

Why does the son of God needs to die ?
Mostly if he has to resurrect it in semi-secrecy afterwards. Why didn't he just jump off the cross when the crowd was gathered. He could have proven his point. Once against, it's not the most important for me.
The most important is : the good guy wins in the end. The story has a good morale, the hero shows us what we should or shouldn't do.

And that's it.
Try to prove that the Bible bears a good morale because, it is the one and only Divine truth because, pseudo-science, is irrelevant. And counter-productive. And dangerous for the bible itself, as I tried to explain you previously in this thread.

GET THE MESSAGE - DON'T JUST READ THE TEXT

Should you feel now disturbed in your literality-infused beliefs after reading those lines, you could probably then now start to really pay attention to what matters about the Bible : how to transpose its values in your life.
Because if you pretend yourselves to be Christians, try at least to sound so.

Like the parable of the lost son ?
How did you transpose it in your personal opinion trough the case of Bowe Bergdahl ?
See ... it's all about allegories.

There are dogmas, and huge dose of unnecessary culpability in the Bible to help you submit yourself to the thing. Get rid of it. It's doesn't do any good to the excellent values it bears.

originally posted by: BlackManINC
If this is what you mean by adaptation or evolution, then fine, you can believe in God as well, the real one in the Bible that is.

How do you know that your god is real, while the thousands of other documented gods are not? Please show me exactly where your religion goes beyond faith in scriptures.

However, if by these terms you mean by common descent, that once upon a time, the magic wand of time and chance mutations changed rocks into fish, fish into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into birds and mammals, well, then your belief would be more applicable to the "gods" worshiped by the pagans that have preached the same kind of rubbish long before the word evolution or Darwin was even thought of, Hinduism being the prime one.

This is why folks shouldn't talk about evolution without understanding how it works. Magic wand? rocks into fish? Do you even know what you're talking about? Your book says man was created completely from dirt, yet you criticize scientific findings as unrealistic? LMAO. Keep on trucking. Just don't talk about things you don't know about, please. It makes all religious folks look bad.

Evolution either is or isn't about the origin of life, you can't have it both ways.

Evolution has never been or is never claimed to be about the origin of life. The only people that actually believe that are ignorant creationists that can't even be bother to read about evolution beyond religious websites. Evolution requires life. You can't have a genetic mutation without a gene. If you want to talk about how the first gene emerged or the origin of life, that's fine, but stop calling it evolution. Evolution is genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. THAT'S IT! It has nothing to do with how life got here, the big bang, the origin of chemicals or the origin of the universe.

Hypothesis or not, the bottom line, is you are pretending that evolution has nothing at all to do with abiogenesis. If the idea is still proposed at all by any scientist anywhere, whether its from NASA or the Smithsonian, then it is obviously still of import.

You are very stubborn in this viewpoint. There are multiple definitions for the word evolution.

1. In reference to the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis, based on the facts of genetic mutations and natural selection.

2. Changing over time, in reference to almost anything.

You forget that English is a very diverse language. Words have multiple meanings, the problem is that you are equating them. Chemical evolution means the changing of chemicals over time to form what we have today. Biological evolution is the theory of modern synthesis. They cannot be equivocated. My knowledge can "evolve" as I learn more on a subject, but that doesn't mean I'm experiencing sudden genetic mutations to facilitate this.

Car designs evolve, computer hardware evolves, a person's taste in music evolves.

Life evolves in both senses of the word. The origin of life is not the biological definition of evolution and it never has been. It's merely semantics.

And with that, you can see how disingenuous the evolutionists are when they twist the real meaning of adaptation to mean one kind of creature changing into another. To these people, everything is evolution.

Adaptation also has multiple meanings. Adaptation can reference short term or long term. Short term adaption explains how an individual survives in its current environment when faced with obstacles or adversity. Long term adaption is part of natural selection and refers to how a trait becomes dominant amongst a species over numerous generations. It seems your issues with evolution are purely based on misunderstanding the meanings of terminology in science. Theory also has a completely different meaning in science. You need to evolve your understanding of evolution so that you may ask the proper questions rather than blindly attacking it.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: borntowatch

You really need to not imply things I did not say. I know of 5 different studies of how amino acids might have formed. Thats not evolution, its speculative chemistry. The most robust is a mixture of gasses equivalent to what the early earth had, and some electricity (lightning), you get amino acids. The bit about rocks really did go past you. DO you know what chiral means, why it is important? Come back and try to debate when you do.

Oh and as for the comments on my degrees? I bet you would bleat a lot louder if your pharmaceuticals were designed and made in kitchens, by untrained and uncaring people. I would bet a lot that at some point you've taken a pharmaceutical for something.

Whoop a chemist.
Do you make compounds or just sell stuff over the counter, I guess I am asking are you a cook or checkout chick.
I am not interested in chirals, I am interested in how they formed from rocks, water and now lightning.
Like a good cook you have sourced all your ingredients, my question is where did those ingredients come from.

I recon I could learn of 5 different studies of how amino acids might NOT have formed. Might is a mighty big word to base a faith on.

Tell me Mr Chemist, where did all the elements come from?

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

There are dogmas, and huge dose of unnecessary culpability in the Bible to help you submit yourself to the thing. Get rid of it. It's doesn't do any good to the excellent values it bears.

I get it now, you are from Belgium?

So tell me what are these dogmas, whats the unnecessary culpability. Just interested in your interpretation if thats ok?

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
Which chapter of the Bible instructs you to enforce Christianity by punching someone the face ?
Seems like I missed that one.

Old Testament. Except those punches were stonings.

a reply to: borntowatch

They are multiples :
At first the automatic inheritance of the original sin the through every man.
You are faulty because Adam bite the Apple of knowledge.
Hey, I didn't bite it. Adam may well have got the universal divine knowledge, it's apparently not redistributed universally through his descendance.
Therefore comes Jesus the saviour, to clean you up of your sins.

It's a little bit light for me to just endorse a Messiah (same goes for the muslims) and consider yourself OK.
For me, God likes nothing more but letting us deal with the consequences of our own actions.
So make sure you behave correctly to avoid getting into trouble.

A second one is, how is God supposed to be universal while there are on the other hand some supposedly chosen people ?

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: borntowatch

They are multiples :
At first the automatic inheritance of the original sin the through every man.
You are faulty because Adam bite the Apple of knowledge.
Hey, I didn't bite it. Adam may well have got the universal divine knowledge, it's apparently not redistributed universally through his descendance.
Therefore comes Jesus the saviour, to clean you up of your sins.

It's a little bit light for me to just endorse a Messiah (same goes for the muslims) and consider yourself OK.
For me, God likes nothing more but letting us deal with the consequences of our own actions.
So make sure you behave correctly to avoid getting into trouble.

A second one is, how is God supposed to be universal while there are on the other hand some supposedly chosen people ?

Original sin, yeah fair enough.
Teaches that a Christian has to be careful and responsible for their actions.

"For me, God likes nothing more but letting us deal with the consequences of our own actions.
So make sure you behave correctly to avoid getting into trouble."

I agree with these comments


Jesus doesnt just save, God expects repentance, that word does not mean what you think it means.
Its sad many Christians dont understand the meaning of the word. Many Christians on this site should consider what they say and how they act. But C&E is a touchy subject.

As for the chosen ones, what were they chosen for, what do you think they were chosen for?

originally posted by: borntowatch
As for the chosen ones, what were they chosen for, what do you think they were chosen for?

This is way too long for me to explain in a single post, unfortunately.
Should I manage to put all my ideas together in a single thread, I'll let you know.
This has something to do with the fact that JC was Jew obviously.
They are still nowadays for me, deicide and cursed by JC himself.

If you want further dogmas : creationism (at least for some).
And any other statement you should want to prove using as argument 'Look at my book !'.
Same goes with the other beliefs don't worry.
And I get the same approch when a scienstist wants to use science to back atheism.

You know in Belgium, we only have two physics Nobel price : Alpha and Omega

***ALERT***

Please keep the conversation on the topic and off each other. Failure to do so can lead to a posting ban without warning.

Do not reply to this post.

Blaine91555
Forum Mod

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: BlackManINC

lol, u mad, bro? threats, or even implied threats of violence are a violation of the T&C.

secondly, and i gotta say, you're hitting some new highs on the "wtf" meter, "the force", as depicted in star wars, has NOTHING to do with either quantum mechanics, or willing life into existence...

would you kindly stop making things up?

The new age rabble of Quantum mysticism has NOTHING at all to do with the real science of quantum mechanics, get it right.

Oops.

To put things back on track about evolutionist VS creationist arguments, I'll bring back that pending question from a few pages back :

How do you explain the development of antibiotics resistant strain of bacteria’s after a couple of generations ?

Sorry, I have to confess I have a hard head sometimes.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: Daedalus
For anybody that believes there is no reality, then let me tap you hard on the jaw with my fist and than you tell me that there is no reality. If it were legal I might just try and knock some sense into you.

Which chapter of the Bible instructs you to enforce Christianity by punching someone the face ?
Seems like I missed that one.

This is not about enforcing Christianity, this is about enforcing reality and common sense. I would like you to tell an abused child that they can create their own reality and see how well that goes.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: BlackManINC

Wait... are you seriously saying you believe that giants roamed the earth??

Are you seriously saying that your ancestors were sh!t throwing apes? Are YOU an ape?

a reply to: BlackManINC

Yes. Now answer my question.