Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

a reply to: Noinden

That article just goes against so much of what he said it actually made me laugh.

And to think that he really thought it was something in his favour? Still giggling to myself.

a reply to: Raggedyman

right God created Adam from the earth

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: Raggedyman

right God created Adam from the earth

Father Spirit impregnated mother earth with consciousness. Makes more sense to me than randomness creating consciousness (evolution).

a reply to: TerryDon79

Yep, I see this time and time again here. The "ahhh crap that did not work, wait try this" approach. Indeed its like a playbook these people go too.

Step 1.5 post about the unreliabiltiy of carbon dating
Step 1.6 Post about that funky soft tissue on a T-rex, scientists must hate that, it goes against science right??? RIGHT?????!!!
Step1.7 ad homenin attack.
Step 1.8 quote a verse from the bible, make sure its not a catholic, they're all pagans.

a reply to: cooperton

See and now you are making those huge jumps in logic. Evolution is not "randomness creating consciousness" evolution is "the process by which different kinds of living organism have developed from earlier forms" and it is an ongoing process.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

See and now you are making those huge jumps in logic. Evolution is not "randomness creating consciousness"

So you're saying evolution is not random? Are you implying intelligence? I'm confused. Explain.

a reply to: Noinden

Yep. Because science won't ever change when new evidence is shown.

That's why we still have horse drawn carts, no computers, no internet and so on.

What I wish is one day creationists will realise that the different sciences used in evolution is also responsible for advances in a whole range of other things such as medicine, technology etc.

a reply to: cooperton

Yes indeed you are very much confused. YOU are saying by your statement that evolution is randomness causing creation of consciousness. I (and science) am saying that evolution is the ongoing process of change in species, through the build-up of mutation. I am not not in any way shape or form implying that greater intelligence's (as in deities, aliens, magic nose goblins) were involved.

There is evidence for evolution, where is the evidence for deity(ies) ???

a reply to: TerryDon79

Indeed that is why my Uncles Chemistry textbooks are just as valuable today to me, as the most recent journals. Nope I will never ever find new techniques, methods, or ideas in those rags ..... I mean I have no idea why other pharmaceutical manufacturers don't just pray that things are correct at the start of a reaction, set the jacket temperature to max, and wander off, trusting the Gods will show their will, and give me 100% yield 100% pure products at the end. OR I could just drive the demons of disease out with a stern exorcism right?

In all seriousness, I wish that these folk would just refuse to live with science in their life period Clearly it is the devils tool.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Yes indeed you are very much confused. YOU are saying by your statement that evolution is randomness causing creation of consciousness. I (and science) am saying that evolution is the ongoing process of change in species, through the build-up of mutation.

Yes, RANDOM mutations.

There is evidence for evolution, where is the evidence for deity(ies) ???

If you can't understand earthly things, how could you understand heavenly things?

a reply to: cooperton

That is such a cop out!

We (scientists and people who understand science) have shown you and others plenty of evidence. Now you won't because we don't understand "heavenly things"?

You know I'm an atheist, right? I'm the type that if there was evidence then I would no longer be an atheist. So come on, convert me with your evidence.

a reply to: cooperton

Neighbour I have already demonstrated that I understand the sciences (earthy things) much better than you. I understand the divine thanks, I just reject a singular deity, who is omnipotent. I'm a hard polytheist as well as a scientist.

a reply to: TerryDon79

See he has an atheist, and a non atheist saying the same things to him. I fully expect that my faith will be ignored, or said to be irrelevant pretty soon After all ALL scientists are atheists right? None of us can be objective otherwise Right??

a reply to: Noinden

Oh you can't be religion AND understand science!

I mean, there's absolutely no one famous who has faith and also understands and accepts things like evolution.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Isaac Newton, was such an atheist Darwin, too, he only held of publishing as he knew his books would be worth more when he died ..... yeah. A Non sequitur deluxe with cheese please!

a reply to: Noinden

And there's certainly no one who was a devout Christian who more recently had anything to do with evolution.

David Lack was obviously not religious

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Neighbour I have already demonstrated that I understand the sciences (earthy things) much better than you.

No you've misrepresented many of the concepts and are ignorant regarding the implication of randomness in the process of evolution, and didn't understand how C-14 gets into once-living organisms. You've said nothing relevant for argument sake that was correct, and anything correct you may have said was erroneous.

I understand the divine thanks, I just reject a singular deity, who is omnipotent. I'm a hard polytheist as well as a scientist.

This shouldn't have even come up. We were arguing science. Yet because I go against the status quo of scientific dogma you assume I'm defending it on religious grounds, which I am not, I am dismissing the theory of evolution on scientific fact.

a reply to: cooperton

You do understand that evolution doesn't mean there is/isn't a god/gods, right?

Evolution is not about the beginning of life (abiogenesis/Genesis/panspermia etc), it's about what happens AFTER life is formed.

There's also plenty of devout Christians (and other religions) who have actively helped with understanding evolution.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

You do understand that evolution doesn't mean there is/isn't a god/gods, right?

Of course. I was simply providing evidence that evolution is not responsible for the diversity of life.

Evolution is not about the beginning of life (abiogenesis/Genesis/panspermia etc), it's about what happens AFTER life is formed.

Yes. But I am giving evidence as to why evolution did not happen - i.e. dinosaurs being thousands of years old (which would render too small of a time frame for random mutation to give rise to the diversity of life).

There's also plenty of devout Christians (and other religions) who have actively helped with understanding evolution.

Yeshua endorses the creative act described in Genesis (Mark 10:6, Matthew 19:4). So they are technically not Christians, but hypocrites. A house is not divided.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

You do understand that evolution doesn't mean there is/isn't a god/gods, right?

Of course. I was simply providing evidence that evolution is not responsible for the diversity of life.

But your evidence is not evidence as C-14 dating will not be accurate after 50,000 years. The C-14 dating done on those objects were not only done to prove a point (badly), but also didn't use any other techniques to date them. Dating isn't done by using just one tool, it uses many. Using just one is dishonest.

Evolution is not about the beginning of life (abiogenesis/Genesis/panspermia etc), it's about what happens AFTER life is formed.

Yes. But I am giving evidence as to why evolution did not happen - i.e. dinosaurs being thousands of years old (which would render too small of a time frame for random mutation to give rise to the diversity of life).

Again, C-14 isn't used as it will give false readings. And as stated before, when dating something more than one dating technique is used. To use just one is dishonest.

There's also plenty of devout Christians (and other religions) who have actively helped with understanding evolution.

Yeshua endorses the creative act described in Genesis (Mark 10:6, Matthew 19:4). So they are technically not Christians, but hypocrites. A house is not divided.

Genesis does not say that evolution is false. Saying someone isn't a Christian because they understand, support, study and confirm evolution is not only wrong (see my previous points), but it's down right ignorant.

So, what evidence (besides your proven false dinosaur, coal and diamond) have you got to prove evolution is wrong?