A True Christian Can Not Believe in Evolution !

There are many atheists and non monotheistic believers who do not believe in Evolution.

A secretive religious elite is using and propagating the theory of evolution to keep everyone disorientated. There is some biblical commandment to "spread the seed" and evolution is used as a justification for this.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

At least demonstrate some knowledge of the Bible before you reference it!

Nice try, wrong again on ALL counts.

You keep saying that, but you never show me how I'm wrong. Repeatedly claiming that your opponent is wrong without providing any reasoning or evidence or refutation of claims is amongst the worst forms of ignorance. Resorting to character attacks in lieu of the above is a step further into the den of ignorance.

You just know how to expertly formulate bogus arguments from the bible, which you don't even believe are true anyways, you are the epitome of a "Devils Advocate".

Again, I've already pointed this out to you. I don't believe Zeus exists, yet I can clearly interpret the myths of the Greeks, etc.

That is why I could respond to your claims as you quoted, but I won't.

Um...then do it. I mean, you keep going on with this refrain (and I can quote many examples of it if you'd like) that you can show me that I'm wrong, but it would just be a waste of your time.

Well, you're one of those evangelical types, so I'm going to have to lay the theological guilt trip on you. I'm guessing you follow an Arminian doctrine of salvation (you are most definitely not a Universalist and you don't seem to follow Calvinist ideas), so that means you are responsible for attempting to 'save' others.

So, what about all the people that I may be leading down the wrong path?
What about me? If I'm so wrong, and you're so right, and the consequences of my wrongness are whatever your theological leanings are on hell...why aren't you trying to help me?

It's a waste of my time, and yours too actually.

No, repeatedly showing you how wrong you are is actually quite a good use of my time. It might even persuade some to distance themselves from your particularly ignorant form of Christianity, if not doubt theism itself.

reply to post by morrr


No, evolution is merely a scientific theory that best explains the diversity of life on planet Earth. it is nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't say you should or should not reproduce, it merely helps you understand why there are so many varieties of animals and plants on this planet.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

All Im saying is that I do believe that God (JESUS) did create man and woman. Male and female. However I also believe that the humans god(JESUS) created may have evolved, or looked different from what we look like today. There is nothing in scripture that suggests otherwise.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I'm going to have to lay the theological guilt trip on you.

Now that really won't work, in fact it has quite the reverse effect, because I have tried to be reasonable with you in the past, and you have proven to be unmovable even in area's we actually agree on. For example we both agree the Sun was created before the earth, yet you foolishly continued to say I shouldn't believe that, even when I agree with you and the science on the issue.
So really if I can't make progress with even basic areas of science that we agree on, how much more hopeless is it on area's we can't.
Actually a well informed christian knows that the bible says that after all reasonable efforts have been made to educate the unbeliever, to actually stop if no progress is being made and especially if the said unbeliever is making mockery of the discussion.

Even Jesus says there is a time to move on and stop wasting time.
Mathew 7:6

Don't give to dogs what belongs to God. They will only turn and attack you. Don't throw pearls down in front of pigs. They will trample all over them.

King Solomon had some good advise in this area too.
Proverbs 9:8

So don't bother correcting mockers; they will only hate you. But correct the wise, and they will love you.

Proverbs 23:9

Don't waste your breath on fools, for they will despise the wisest advice.

Proverbs 9:7

He who corrects a mocker invites insult. He who reproves a wicked man invites abuse.

Proverbs 13:1b

a mocker refuses to listen to correction.

Thus the end of line has been reached for me responding to any of your posts in any thread, you have finally exhausted the benefit of the doubt I have been giving you up until now.

Now where did that ignore feature go?
I guess ATS took it away.
Too bad.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I'm going to have to lay the theological guilt trip on you.

Now that really won't work, in fact it has quite the reverse effect, because I have tried to be reasonable with you in the past, and you have proven to be unmovable even in area's we actually agree on.

I'm sorry, but you've not been reasonable with me, you've been anything but reasonable with me. You've been the exact opposite of that. You're in the mindset that says that I'm wrong because you say so.

For example we both agree the Sun was created before the earth, yet you foolishly continued to say I shouldn't believe that, even when I agree with you and the science on the issue.

No, I said that you shouldn't believe it if you hold the Bible as literal truth. I've repeatedly contended (particularly in this thread), that the accepted scientific consensus is open to everyone, but it never jives with the literal interpretations of holy books.

The Bible clearly states that the Sun was created not just after Earth, but after plants. If anyone was being foolish, it was you saying that the Bible doesn't say that, instead putting forth ideas that would be just as physically impossible to explain it away. I mean, a vapor cloud so dense that light couldn't get through? Aren't you aware of the catastrophic effects of nuclear winter?

In that discussion, you didn't even bother to address my objections to your explanations, even though I routinely kept objecting in more than reasonable manners.

So really if I can't make progress with even basic areas of science that we agree on, how much more hopeless is it on area's we can't.

I'm happy you agree on that. Now I'm trying to get you the step further to make you realize that you disagree with the Bible on this issue.

Actually a well informed christian knows that the bible says that after all reasonable efforts have been made to educate the unbeliever, to actually stop if no progress is being made and especially if the said unbeliever is making mockery of the discussion.

Of course, you've not made a reasonable statement here. In fact, you've merely dismissed everything I've said as incorrect without showing why.

Even Jesus says there is a time to move on and stop wasting time.
Mathew 7:6

Don't give to dogs what belongs to God. They will only turn and attack you. Don't throw pearls down in front of pigs. They will trample all over them.

YAY! Jesus being used to justify being silly!

King Solomon had some good advise in this area too.

Except not on spelling.

Proverbs 9:8

So don't bother correcting mockers; they will only hate you. But correct the wise, and they will love you.

Proverbs 23:9

Don't waste your breath on fools, for they will despise the wisest advice.

Of course, Solomon is right. It is futile and insufferable for me to bother with someone who is calling me a 'fool' and a 'mocker'.

That's the tolerant and loving 'good book' for you!

Proverbs 9:7

He who corrects a mocker invites insult. He who reproves a wicked man invites abuse.

Proverbs 13:1b

a mocker refuses to listen to correction.

Yes, you are being quite stubborn.

You see, in psychological circles you are doing what is called projection. Anyone reading this has to see that I've been incredibly open to discussion and correction. I even apologized for accusing you of inserting annotations into a Bible merely because I couldn't find the version myself.

Thus the end of line has been reached for me responding to any of your posts in any thread, you have finally exhausted the benefit of the doubt I have been giving you up until now.

You never bothered to actually respond to anything I posted in the first place.

Show me a single instance where you actually bothered to address me on points, rather than simply saying I'm wrong because I'm an atheist. The only difference is that now I'll simply see no replies from you. Y

Now where did that ignore feature go?
I guess ATS took it away.
Too bad.

Creationist, fundamentalist Christians, sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "lalalala I can't hear you!" whenever you point out that they're wrong.

I'm the one that's been reasonable here, you've been quite the opposite. I'll let your own words play me out:

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

We have clashed minds in other forums, which is the appropriate area for those debates.
But you and others choose to ignore the clear ATS rules re-posted by another.
In this forum, as per the ATS rules I do not have to put up with that rhetoric.
Here are the ATS rules for this forum as stated, you won't miss it this time.

"ALL MEMBERS READ - Moving Past Religion 101 and Staying on Topic"

(snipped pointless multicolored T&C quote - madnessinmysoul)

Now as for your point about the context of the scripture, yes the context is a discussion with the pharisees on divorce, very true, but the Pharisees never believed in evolution did they? It wasn't even an issue. So why did Jesus even make that statement? The point is really for the modern day believer, and a confirmation of Jesus own personal knowledge of an event he was around to witness and participate in. Very simple really, actually the context in this scripture helps to make my point, thanks for bringing that out for everybody.

edit on 30-12-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

So, first response, address the point vaguely, but doesn't highlight that I pointed out that Jesus doesn't have a good track record with science, nor does it point out that he might have been using a parable, metaphor, or allegory, as Jesus was known to do. You also randomly invoke the T&C, acting as if I'm somehow going to attack this thread and bring it off topic, without any evidence of me doing so, in an attempt to discredit me right off the bat. Not reasonable.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Yeah and accordingly Jesus was in effect acknowledging the first marriage of the first two created people on this earth. You keep unwittingly reinforcing my points. I love it, keep it up, this is awesome.

You know Madness you really don't understand the bible at all, your posts time after time show this. You claim to have understanding of the bible, but really you don't, and why should you, it's a fairy tale to you. All your posts show me is you have basic knowledge of scripture. Here is why you can't understand the bible, scripture actually tells us both why.

John 4:24

God is a Spirit (a spiritual Being) and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth (reality).

A hardcore atheist will NEVER EVER get the spirit, thus the path to truth and reality is blocked, it is a hopeless exercise of futility on their behalf, to even try.

John 17:3

And this is eternal life: [it means] to know (to perceive, recognize, become acquainted with, and understand) You, the only true and real God, and [likewise] to know Him, Jesus [as the] Christ (the Anointed One, the Messiah), Whom You have sent.

However any atheist, can change(repent), and then receive the spirit, God won't hold it against you.

(Emphasis added)

So you then repeatedly claim (without basis) that I don't understand the Bible, claim that a 'hardcore atheist' (how does one not believe in a deity in a hardcore manner?) can't understand the Bible, and then attempt to convert me. Not reasonable.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I'm quite sure those parentheses weren't in the version of the Bible you're quoting.

Yes they were, I use multiple online bibles to make my points, in this instance it is the Amplified Bible
Link
www.biblegateway.com...

Quick note here, I apologized for that.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Anyways trying to discuss specific bible points with you is hopeless with your mindset, firstly you don't believe it, secondly every point that is made is twisted to a invalid interpretation because you don't believe it anyways.
Twisted to a position that favors an atheistic perspective.
It is the perfect way to undermine the word of God and a persons faith in it.
I will give you this, you are quite the expert at doing it.

For this reason I will continue to ignore parts of your posts, it's a waste of keystrokes for me at this point - especially within this forum as has been repeated.

(Emphasis added)

Once more you accuse me of not understanding the Bible, repeatedly defame my character, and claim I'm wrong. And once more there's no demonstration. Not reasonable

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

At least demonstrate some knowledge of the Bible before you reference it!

Nice try, wrong again on ALL counts.
You just know how to expertly formulate bogus arguments from the bible, which you don't even believe are true anyways, you are the epitome of a "Devils Advocate".
That is why I could respond to your claims as you quoted, but I won't.
It's a waste of my time, and yours too actually.

(Emphasis added)

Ok, now this is just getting silly. You keep claiming I'm wrong and this time you even said you could respond to your claims but refuse to because it's a waste of our time? I'm just appalled. I mean, here I am asking you quite honestly for why I'm wrong (apparently atheists can't be sincere either), and yet you just keep saying that my questions are a waste of time. You also clearly ignored my quite well formulated "I'm allowed to understand mythology and fiction" argument for why an atheist can speak on religious texts and throw out the 'you don't believe it anyway' crap again. Not reasonable.

And here you are in this post, claiming that you're just not even going to bother with me. Calling me a fool and a mocker when I have neither acted foolishly nor mocked (at least up until this post, where I mocked creationists ignoring people for no reason), begging for an ignore button, and dismissing me once more without evidence to show that I'm wrong.

You know, at least when I get frustrated, I do so because I keep showing people why they're wrong and they don't bother listening.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I've been down this non-contradiction more times than I can count, but read this:

Creation, Genesis 1 and 2

For the answer and details to the hemoglobin issue watch Session 4


I will respond after you watch/comment though.



(Okay, clip 3 also, sorry.)

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Even if evolution isn't really an observable process, it carries considerable evidence. I don't see where evolution contradicts Christianity until we get into "Origins of the Species" which is ridiculous speculation considering that they haven't found that missing link yet. When I first heard of evolution, I thought it was proof that God still had a hand in His creation. Much to my surprise, people use it against God. I find this ridiculous, it's like assuming a machine can run on it's own without being put together and maintained by a mechanic. You are correct in that Scientists have an agenda. Aboyt 90% of them are atheists or secular humanists, and a considerable number are morally relitivist monsters. Still, I don't see how the Bible contradicts adaptation.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Thread Note - Atheistic based trolling comments will be ignored. This thread is for Christians to comment, one way or another.

I am a former Christian, so let me put on my Biblical glasses and stop being an atheist here for a second... hang on, almost there, just going over the Sinner's prayer... Alright, got my salvation back in order... now let's look at your claims.

Thread Note - Censorship is not an argument, in an open internet forum you don't get to shield yourself from inquiry and criticism.

To be honest I fully agree with your No True Scotsman Fallacy here. Here's a list of people who also cannot be considered Christians:

- Anyone who prays in public. According to Jesus Christians should pray in secret.

- Anyone who doesn't put their rebellious child to death. Jesus came to fulfill the law and said that following the commandments was good and that if you follow them you can be "great in the kingdom". There are many Old Testament commandments, presumably Jesus is talking about these.

- Anyone who lusts after a woman. Jesus sets up a precedent here that lusting after someone even in your imagination is wrong. If you do it than you aren't following Christ and therefore aren't a Christian (or a human).

- Anyone who judges others.

- Anyone who doesn't cast out demons, raise the dead and heal the sick. Jesus says you shall know them by their "fruit" and that his followers will be able to do these things. If you aren't actively performing miracles than you don't count as a Christian.

Need I go on? Feel free to ignore this

reply to post by Blue_Jay33
Nope, rather devolution or degeneration.. that's why He create a new world for those who died before the cross, and 3th heaven who've believe He is resurrect from the dead.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

I am a former Christian,..

You may have been a God-believing churchgoer, but you were never born again. Not a new creation by the Holy Spirit in Christ. Going to church doesn't make you a believer any more than going into your garage makes you a car. Please don't take offense, but you were never born again by the Holy Spirit.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Going to church doesn't make you a believer any more than going into your garage makes you a car.

Also a simple belief isn't enough either.
James 2:19

You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I've been down this non-contradiction more times than I can count, but read this:

Creation, Genesis 1 and 2

Care to just summarize on the points I made? I mean, that's an awfully long article. I don't want to spam a wall of text in reply to a single issue.

For the answer and details to the hemoglobin issue watch Session 4


I will respond after you watch/comment though.


(Okay, clip 3 also, sorry.)

edit on 3-1-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

So instead of just providing me with a source for the calculations....you provide me with a creationist video that's 10 minutes long. Instead of addressing that a deck of cards being any order is impossible, at least according to your definition of impossible, you link a video.

I made points that could be addressed with succinct external sourcing.

Now, I'll watch clip 3.

Ok, first off, he claims that DNA is error correcting, as if to eschew the possibility of mutation. Yes, it is error correcting, no that doesn't preclude mutations (every member of this forum should have around 180 of them).

Next he claims it's error free, I'd like the hear him say that to anyone who knows anything about cancer.

And then he pull a number from...well, let's say that it must be a deep, dark place...and claims something about 3 billion elements. Now, is he talking about pieces? Is he talking about elements in the sense of the periodic table (he better not be, because that might be the wrongest fourth wrongest thing I've ever heard a creationist say)? He just randomly pulls unsourced numbers. I hope this isn't the guy that you're asking me to take as a source for your numbers...

Wait, I recognize this guy now! He's the guy who came up with the incredibly ridiculous peanut butter video, it's the second worst creationist food argument I've ever seen! Number one being Banana Man Ray Comfort, got to give credit where it's due. Apparently if we combine the atheist's nightmare foods of bananas and peanut butter...hmm, that's actually quite tasty.

Anyway, back on the video...

Ok, more out of context numbers. Doesn't anyone else smell herring? I mean, he doesn't take into account how atoms self-structure into molecules...at all. And when is this going to address anything I was talking about?

And now, now of all times, this guy makes the ridiculous mistake (not as ridiculous as the peanut butter thing) of straw manning. Actually, he makes two of them. First, he addresses abiogenesis, then says that a failure of abiogenesis would have something to do with evolution (or Darwin in this case). Secondly, he makes the mistake of saying that anyone in abiogenesis thinks that DNA happened randomly on its own without precursors.

So...further fail. Why are you bothering to link me to videos in which the individuals can't get evolution straight? Do they need a high school biology class to help them understand what evolution is?

Then he brings up an off-hand comment about chance...and goes on to summarize previous points made in previous parts of the lecture.

I'll skip over the summary of the previous videos, as I haven't seen them so I'd hate to address an off-hand summary.

Now, he then goes on to make an extraordinary claim about accepting Genesis 1:1, at least extraordinary in its impact to theology.

Quick point. Now, maybe it's mentioned in an earlier part in the talk, but why isn't he citing the translation of the Bible he's using?

Ooo, something I can sink my teeth into, 'darkness that is tangible, black holes and whathaveyou'...um...black holes aren't a tangible darkness, they're incredibly dense matter. The darkness of a black hole comes from light not reflecting off of it, not some sort of inherent 'anti-light' property. Darkness is not even an opposite to light, it is merely an absence of it. Light, on the other hand, is (relatively) tangible, being that it's a wave/particle thingy (incredibly scientific term). You can reflect it, focus it, distort it, etc...but you can't do anything like that to 'darkness' because it is an absence of something.

Ok, he's finally quoting Genesis without referring to things not mentioned in this video. Day 3, in which land plants magically spring up before sea life. Now, we have absolutely no physical evidence to show that plant life on land predated plant life in the sea or even animal life in the sea.

First law of thermodynamic, a repeated creationist fail. It addresses energy in a system and the transference of it, not the theory of relativity. Of course, the other issue is that we do technically see matter coming out of nowhere in the realm of quantum physics with virtual particles, but I'm not going to go into that in too much detail because I'm learning about it myself. Then second law fail, also addresses a closed system.
Newsflash! The sun negates the Earth being considered a closed system. In fact, the Solar System is moving towards entropy as a whole, but the Earth itself isn't.

Then he makes the oft-repeated silly claim that entropy applies everywhere. No, it only applies in closed systems. If we take the universe as a whole, there is a move towards entropy with sporadic bits of complexity. Of course, the Earth, the life on Earth, etc are all examples of complexity in a sea of entropy.

As for information being unable to be created...why do creationists keep claiming this without defining the term 'information' properly? It's on that list of terms, alongside 'kind', which I've yet to see a definition of, that creationists seem to be so certain of, yet cannot define. That was a sloppy sentence, I apologize.

What does a deity ending his work have to do with thermodynamics? This is one hell of a stretch?

'And from that point on (end of creation) the laws are frozen' ...you mean accept for miracles, coming to Earth in bodily form to repeatedly defy the laws of physics, flooding the Earth magically, stopping the sun in the sky (which doesn't make sense in the first place), making people spontaneously speak different languages, etc. The Bible is ripe with instances of the laws of physics being violated, how can they be frozen?

How is 'heaven and earth will pass away' a revealing of entropy? I mean, wouldn't an omniscient being have a better way of revealing this to the world? Again, such a stretch, none of the passages describe anything except for an application of noticing that things change over time to the 'heavens and earth' in a fairly primitive manner. You can't pin entropy, a concept that's far more than a simplistic expression, to that sort of iron age thinking.

I mean, by this logic, you can pin the entirety of atomic theory on Democritus, even though he never mentions the structures and components, yet he's a hell of a lot more specific on atoms, the thing he actually named about 400 years before Jesus is claimed to have roamed, than the Bible is on these concepts Missler is attributing to him.

And, as of yet, this video has had absolutely nothing to do with evolution, the very topic of this thread. The closest it got to the realm of biology was abiogenesis.

Oh, thank you! Thank you so much! NOTurTypical, you have made my day. He actually pulls out peanut butter about 8.5 minutes in! Ha...oh, I needed that laugh.

You're serious though? I mean, I can debunk the point without listening to it, because I've already shown that I've heard of it. Also, this is abiogenesis again, not evolution.

Ok, he claims that a jar of peanut butter is an open thermodynamic system, he has that part right...and then he claims that modern biology claims that life can be created from 'matter and energy'...though technically that is true of the concept, it is only the most basic of basic reductions of it. I mean, I would claim that the steel paperweight near my laptop should produce life because it's getting heat from the laptop (it gets damn hot sometimes, but it works as a good handwarmer), because it's made of metal. Oh, he just mentioned that it has to be organic (anything involving carbon in the molecules...it's a very big group, organic chemistry is a whole subset that is an insane field to get into)...and yet he doesn't go on to demonstrate any knowledge of abiogenesis, which requires some pretty specific conditions not found in a jar of peanut butter or anywhere else on the planet these days for that matter.

In fact, what he is discounting is spontaneous generation, the idea that life can entirely randomly arise from nonlife, no specific conditions required...Pasteur is way ahead of him on this one.

...alright, back to him speaking, even though the ignorance makes me sad...

He just said 'it's not inert, it's organic'
Inert means unreactive, organic means based upon carbon....it's like saying "That's not heavy, it's incredibly blue!" They're two terms that have nothing to do with each other.

'If I believe what they teach us in school'
He has demonstrated that he doesn't even know what's being taught. Hell, even if he did, he'd be applying a middle school level explanation of a complex scientific phenomenon. I learned about star formation in elementary school, doesn't mean that the explanation was anything close to the proper scientific one. He shouldn't even care about attacking what is taught in school, he (and Kent Hovind) should be attacking the scientific literature, which definitely contains none of this nonsense.

Lastly, if there were new life, how would he know it isn't there just by opening it? If a proto-cell emerged from a jar of peanut butter, it would get eaten by other present microbes (unless this is somehow 100% sterile peanut butter) or eaten by people before it is discovered. It would be impossible to detect with the human eye, and would require a thorough scouring with powerful optical devices of an opaque substance.

I mean, if there were life in it, why would it be macroscopic life living at the top of the jar? This is just pure lunacy and scientific ignorance.

His example fails on so many points and none of this bothers to address evolution, the topic of this thread.

NOTurTypical, this clip has failed on many levels (didn't bother with both of them, one was enough, especially when it contained the peanut butter thing). I don't know why you bothered linking it, but thanks for the softball.

Now, care to address evolution?

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Well, he might eventually ignore you after not addressing any of your points, it's sort of what happened to me. Just look at the monster of a post in which he claims to have been reasonable...and yet I can clearly show he hasn't.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

but you were never born again by the Holy Spirit.

I'm glad that you and I can agree on something. You're absolutely right, I was never born again of the Holy Spirit, mainly because there is no such thing. Its hard to be possessed of something fictional. Before you go ahead and warn me that I'm dangerously close to "blaspheming the Holy Spirit" let me calm you down by telling you I've already taken the Blasphemy Challenge.

Now I could speak in tongues by the time I was a teenager and so at the time I did consider myself baptized in the Holy Spirit. What I found was that the most random things would set off my tongue speaking. A beautiful sunset, a rocking metal song and even a hot chick could all set me off. This was suspicious to me as a Christian but I shrugged it off. Eventually I found I could speak in tongues even AFTER I'd lost my Christian faith. In fact I can still speak in tongues now.

There is nothing magical or supernatural about Glossolalia (tongues) and there certainly aren't any spirits involved.

Thanks for the No True Scotsman benefit of the doubt

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Care to just summarize on the points I made?

I already summarized the link with the newspaper articles example. You didn't like the Cliff Notes version.

So instead of just providing me with a source for the calculations....you provide me with a creationist video that's 10 minutes long.

Sorry to have been so insanely unreasonable to suggest you watch 10 minute video, accept my apologies?

Instead of addressing that a deck of cards being any order is impossible, at least according to your definition of impossible, you link a video.

I didn't address it because I feel it's absurd. Unless you didn't mean to say "in ANY order". Because you always have a probability of 100% to assemble a deck of cards in any order. I could toss a deck in the air, pick them all up, and they would be assembled in "any" order every time.

And then he pull a number from...well, let's say that it must be a deep, dark place...and claims something about 3 billion elements.

I believe you're playing semantics with his use of the word "elements", we both know he isn't speaking of the Periodic table of elements.

Wait, I recognize this guy now! He's the guy who came up with the incredibly ridiculous peanut butter video, it's the second worst creationist food argument I've ever seen!

And you're the uncountable latest Evolutionist to not understand his peanut butter analogy was merely hyperbole and sarcastic humor. He makes the same analogy in other videos and is laughing (audience is as well).

Ooo, something I can sink my teeth into, 'darkness that is tangible, black holes and whathaveyou'...um...black holes aren't a tangible darkness, they're incredibly dense matter. The darkness of a black hole comes from light not reflecting off of it, not some sort of inherent 'anti-light' property. Darkness is not even an opposite to light, it is merely an absence of it. Light, on the other hand, is (relatively) tangible, being that it's a wave/particle thingy (incredibly scientific term). You can reflect it, focus it, distort it, etc...but you can't do anything like that to 'darkness' because it is an absence of something.

It'd help to see the series on "The Nature of light", he is speaking of the different Hebrew wording for "darkness" in Genesis 1 verses other Hebrew words with different connotation for "darkness" as in absence of light. English is lazy, fault the Brits for that one.

Here is what I cannot understand...

why is it when Creationists take arguments from Evolutionists to their absurd conclusions do you Evolutionists think the Creationists are absurd instead of pondering, "Hey, maybe the claims of Evolution are absurd"?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Here is what I cannot understand...

why is it when Creationists take arguments from Evolutionists to their absurd conclusions do you Evolutionists think the Creationists are absurd instead of pondering, "Hey, maybe the claims of Evolution are absurd"?

Because there are no arguments from evolution that have absurd conclusions. The entirety of the video you provided merely demonstrated Missler's lack of evolution and consequently your own. None of the points in that video were anywhere near related to evolution.

Now, I'm recognizing a pattern here. I'm expected to respond to a 10 minute video, which I do with about 1500 words worth of deconstruction...and you attach yourself to the easy parts and take only a smattering of my post to respond to.

You claim that I'm playing a semantics game, though I state that I think the dude probably isn't mentioning the periodic table of elements version of elements, though possibly he meant the number of individual atoms involved or something.

The whole point I was trying to make that the totality of all arguments against what is perceived to be evolution in that video had absolutely nothing to do with evolution, and what little did have to do with science had either a gross simplification or complete misunderstanding of the science at hand. The only citations made in the whole video were of the Bible, even though there was some information that clearly required citation.

And there's no evidence to show that the peanut butter thing is a joke. I've looked into it since you mentioned it, but nowhere have I seen that it's a joke.

No matter how life came about, evolution is fact. If the first life was created by an all-powerful being, evolution would still be a fact. If a magic space donkey suddenly farted life onto the planet one day, evolution was fact.

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest, but evolution is definitely not absurd. It is doubtlessly the only scientific theory for the origin of biodiversity that has any sort of evidence supporting it. Now, the level of evidence in support of it is so staggering that it's not even possible for me to list it all in a thread.

One last thing, I'd like to point out that you've been consistently dropping points, as I'm still awaiting word from you on more than a few questions, namely what the hell a 'kind' is.