Evolution Vs. God

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Fromabove

 

I see where you are going with this, but pulling one word out to prove a point does disservice to understanding the text as a whole. I won't post all of Genesis 1, but these few verses sum it up:

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

edit on 28-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

Absolutely correct. You and I know this and we see it in everything around us. But they don't understand that even when they think they can show that life came out of the ground and sea, they don't understand that God is the Creator. God defined what each "kind" was and it's genetic code so that it would and should stay that way.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by sirhumperdink

 

most have faith and 1/3 are christian and yet look at the state of the world we live in........ it would seem that tiny minority of nonbelievers sure does have a lot of influence....... or maybe....... naaaah couldnt be
also interesting how the most populace religion on the planet is constantly "under attack"

How does that have anything to do with the evolution fallacy?

Sounds like a red herring to me.

"Evolution fallacy"

Out of curiosity, have you taken the time to thoroughly read any publications on evolution in scientific journals? Not briefly skim over, I mean READ.

Originally posted by Vasa Croe
Are we really going to have to put up with a Soapbox thread on creation from you EVERY week? The fact that the creationists are constantly pushing this on ATS tells me that they are just itching to push their belief system on everyone, just as good Christians are supposed to do....push and push and push. While it may be your god's will, I have my own will. I have a mind and logic of my own. Creation is rubbish....please quit starting a thread on the same dead horse every week when you need more S&F's or just feel that you need to spew the word of your god.

THIS.

I'm tired of sticking my head in these posts only to find a user redirecting me to a video by scientifically illiterate individuals attempting to refute a fact that is corroborated by multiple lines of independent evidence. At least give evolution a run for its money, rather than resorting to the worn-out Goddidit argument. Ugh, this is discussed ad nauseam...

If someone wants to falsify evolution, then what are you waiting for? Formulate a testable hypothesis and present it to the scientific community.

Originally posted by LittleByLittle
My opinions on this thread

1. The bible will never be and never was written to be the whole truth from god. In fact it is a test book to see if you are a sheep or a goat. Many say god in words and pray but are anti-christs in behaviour because they do not understand the test or the hidden messages.

2. The bible is a symbolic book that uses the number 7 for specific reasons that the most readers have no understanding of why. 7 days should probably not take literally. Maybe if you do not know why 7 is such a important number in the bible, you better seek and find why it is repeated so much.

3. Darwinian symbiosis and evolution works perfectly with the ideas that god started the cocktail and let it evolve as it was meant to with the guidance of synchronicity (the mysterious ways).

There might be a duality between Evolution and God in peoples mind. But to me that is only a illusion that you are creating. God uses evolution also in souls and changes them just like species evolve. Fractal reality. As above below.

edit on 28-8-2013 by LittleByLittle because: Spellchecking

Nail on the head my friend NAIL ON THE HEAD!


Now. Let's start here.


This is Phi 1.618. The Golden Ratio. The creator of life. All life started with this ratio and is still being created by it. This is your "God" Believe me or not I really don't care, but if you are interested I highly recommend doing some studying.

“All life is biology. All biology is physiology. All physiology is chemistry. All chemistry is physics. All physics is math.” Dr. Stephen Marquardt

The design of life is based on a “Golden Ruler™” It has long been known that the Golden Section, or Divine Proportion, appears in certain proportions of living organisms. In 1997, I began to wonder how universal this was and how far it could be applied. I took a golden section of a line not just once, but many times, to form what I like to call the “golden ruler,” shown as follows: First, take a line and divide it so that the proportion of (B) to (A) is the same as the proportion of (C) to (B): Sectioning a line to form the Golden Section, Golden Ratio or Divine Proportion based on Phi Divide the line again and again in the same way: Successive Golden Sections of a Line to show phi or golden ratio points Combine the segments to create a measuring stick or “Golden Ruler™:” The "Golden Ruler" - a Fibonacci Measuring Stick (copyright EOT 1997) This appears in the proportions of many life forms:

www.goldennumber.net...

Okay! Fun cartoon time! This is the Math Of God. Enjoy.

reply to post by Agent008


This is my favorite topic. Sacred geometry and for me the truth of God hidden in plain sight as the bible declares. I think this deserves it's own thread. Please consider it. Great video!

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I believe there are a few threads that go into great depth on this topic. How do you feel about Syncretism?

About 16 minutes in there's a bit about the appendix and how it "has no use".

That's incorrect, it's used as a reservoir for good bacteria.

Anyways, the video was boring and presented the same tripe that creationists have tried to use as evidence and shot-down by leading biological scientists. This video is just an attempt to catch people who don't know the precise answers to questions off-guard, and present it as some kind of fact that evolution is wrong.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


*bump*

8th

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Name one scientist (meaning they possess a PhD from an accredited university and have been published in at least one reputable journal) that thinks "polystrate" tree fossils are a problem for evolution. You have also never provided a mechanism that prevents speciation from occurring. At one point you went off on some random tangent about abiogenesis and cells. After that you claimed that it is impossible for information to be added to DNA. I then told you (on a number of occasions since you continued to make this false claim) that insertion and duplication are two common mutations that add information to DNA. So, can you provide a mechanism that prevents mutations from accruing to the point that speciation occurs?

You also never did answer my other question. If speciation does not occur does that mean there were billions of species living concurrently at the dawn of time?

Originally posted by Agent008
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

I believe there are a few threads that go into great depth on this topic. How do you feel about Syncretism?

Well, lots of beliefs have been melded. I believe in truth no matter where it is coming from. Pagans like to say, "As above so below", Christians like "You reap what you sow", so, there is truth mixed about, and I enjoy digging it out. How are you applying that word here?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

Really another person on this site thinks "polystrate trees" (a term invented by Creationists) disproves evolution? As is pointed out in this link from TalkOrigins we have been able to explain these fossils since the 19th century. That's how out of date the "Creationist science" is.

"Polystrate" Tree Fossils

Let me pose to you two questions I posed to US in another thread which he was never able to adequately answer. I at least hope you admit adaptation occurs and that adaptation is the product of genetic mutations. So, if mutations can lead to visible changes over just a few generations what is the mechanism that prevents mutations from accruing over many generations and as a result leading to wide scale changes that results in speciation?

The other question focuses on the logical outcome of what would happen if evolution did not occur. Science says that the number of species existing now equal about 0.1% of all species that have ever existed. So do you believe that there were billions of species living concurrently at the beginning of the planet?

Adaptations and mutations are not speciation, they all happen within their own Kind never showing to change Kind.

Evolution is billed as an upward arrow going from pond scum with zero species to billions of species.
I ask you what happened?
How could everything be chugging along so nicely for evolution with billions of species, then all species take a nosedive and we are left with only 0.1% today?
The arrow is going up then it is going down, it is topsy turvy.
Not once is there evidence found of one species becoming another.
The only thing we see happening to species numbers is extinctions.
Of all the millions of species that have gone extinct in our human recorded history, where is the evidence that evolution saved more than went extinct? To go from pond scum to billions of species over millions and millions of years, evolution must have produced more species than extinction rates to be a viable theory. Did evolution hide? Did it take a nap? Did it turn off? I thought evolution was a benign inevitabillity? You have way more questions to answer than I do, and any answers you can come up with will require faith because there is no observable repeatable evidence.

The arrow is a one way street heading down, and always has been. Species appear in the fossil records fully developed. No birds, then birds, an overabundance of bird species, only to decline forever more from that point on. Same with all species.

We find a fossil in a layer of sediment. There is no doubt sediment happened in episodes. When it is convenient to say these episodes happened fast, to explain Polystrate trees, then they say it happened fast. When they find a creature nearby in the same sediment, they magically say it happened slow. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. There are better bullsheeters that come out of prison cells every day.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


It's a little hard to do that as you know you all fired everyone of them and prevent their articles from getting published. That's sort of like a white person asking a black person to name one good black politician in 1910! (No, I dont know if there were any then, just an example folks).

So, you throw out some straw man argument as if it proves your crap "science". You guys can't even date crap right.



You want to ignore your lying frauds, and then say, "See we caught them"! Yeh, 40 friggin years later! By then you had the drooling masses buying this pseudo science. So, play your games. Look at the geological tables and look at a tree or fish or whale going right through it! How long do you think it takes for a fish to decay?

Science has to be observable to prove a hypothesis. You cannot observe species changing to new kinds of animals. You can't even provide intermediate fossils to prove it, but you want to pull out, "Show me one journal".

Imagine if Darwin had faced this in his day, he would never have even gotten his theory out there! There was a time people could truly investigate things, but you all keep saying "Science" when you should be saying, "FAITH".

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Just one point I have to make... I am a great follower of science and evolutionism and I need to ask a creationist one thing. If you believe that life cannot come from non life, THEN WHERE DID YOUR CREATOR COME FROM?! How can you argue the simple fact of evolution and believe that god created everything, but cannot explain how god came from nothing. Your argument is as baseless as you are saying ours is.

Originally posted by Tylerknight
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Just one point I have to make... I am a great follower of science and evolutionism and I need to ask a creationist one thing. If you believe that life cannot come from non life, THEN WHERE DID YOUR CREATOR COME FROM?! How can you argue the simple fact of evolution and believe that god created everything, but cannot explain how god came from nothing. Your argument is as baseless as you are saying ours is.

Thank you! And yet here you are saying your argument is baseless yet it's shoved down kids throats for years! It's destroyed a sense of morality because they like not having any moral absolutes. They like lying, greed, lust, adultery, and since they have been taught they are just animals then why not shoot people for the fun of it. Why not rape little 14 year old girls and say she was mature for her age and wanted it as just happened recently and the teacher got his 30yr sentence dropped to nothing! Yeh, tell me how well this society has turned out with survival of the fittest!

The theory of evolution is as much a religion of faith as Christianity. Stop teaching it in schools.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I already explained to you how that chart is not proof of anything. The methodology of the scientists involved in those studies was flawed. At least in one case the scientist acknowledged in his paper that the samples used were not homogenous. That of course is going to lead to errors in dating. I also pointed out how that dating method hasn't been used for a while. It absolutely amazes me how dishonest you are being with the "evidence" you're proving. I guess the Creationist motto is "If at first your lies don't succeed try, try again."

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Okay so you didn't answer my question at all, and please don't thank me as I was not saying what you think I was. I said quote "as baseless as you THINK ours is"

If you care to answer my question about why you think god is the end all be all and there was nothing before him and he just exists and came from nothing I would love to hear your answer!

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

I already explained to you how that chart is not proof of anything. The methodology of the scientists involved in those studies was flawed. At least in one case the scientist acknowledged in his paper that the samples used were not homogenous. That of course is going to lead to errors in dating. I also pointed out how that dating method hasn't been used for a while. It absolutely amazes me how dishonest you are being with the "evidence" you're proving. I guess the Creationist motto is "If at first your lies don't succeed try, try again."

The other dating methods don't work either doll. You are really good at this ignoring the facts. Show me one species incrementally changing to a new kind of species. Not a bird to a new looking bird, but as evolution teaches, say a fish to a lizard or a lizard to a bird... don't throw up some goofy image of a 1 dino with feathers that are already being disproved, show me this dino changing over millions of years to the bird. you can't and you know it. They jumped on the IDA bandwagon so fast saying it was going to be the new standard and PROVE evolution. Why the need to prove it if it's already settled fact? Then shazam!!! um sorry folks, not accurate... move along, nothing to see.

Why don't you tell me how the golden ratio is just happenstance. Why don't you tell me why nature has the Fibonacci sequence by a lark. I'm waiting. I noticed you never touched that. Why don't you tell me how mutations create new DNA and improve the species so much when science does not see mutation as a good thing but a loss in DNA. Why don't you tell me about the junk DNA that they now know is very useful.

The whole city of the cell throws your theory in the trash. Just how did all those things know they were needed, and there is less than a 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion chance of amino acids even making a simple 150 strain protein? You wanna buy that lottery ticket? Didn't think so.

Originally posted by Tylerknight
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Okay so you didn't answer my question at all, and please don't thank me as I was not saying what you think I was. I said quote "as baseless as you THINK ours is"

If you care to answer my question about why you think god is the end all be all and there was nothing before him and he just exists and came from nothing I would love to hear your answer!

I cannot prove something I don't have access to, and unlike evolutionists, I am not going to even try to play that game. I freely admit that is the deepest question, but it does not disprove creation. It simply sets the mark out there that we may someday know.

So, rather than play mental gymnastics, I know when to say "I don't know". I don't ask you to teach it in public school, and yet that is exactly what is happening with evolution. If they want to believe it, then fine, but say it's a belief and not proven. Don't play the games you see all over these threads. They want to deny simple issues brought up as if they don't exist when Darwin himself said the Cambrian explosion was a big problem and he expected us to find the intermediate fossils to prove his theory.

I seriously doubt Darwin would have postulated what he did had he known what we now know about DNA, cell biology, and such. Sure, there is adaptation WITHIN a species, he got that right. He went to far when he tried to say we come from common ancestors and plants are linked in there.

Originally posted by Tylerknight
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Just one point I have to make... I am a great follower of science and evolutionism and I need to ask a creationist one thing. If you believe that life cannot come from non life, THEN WHERE DID YOUR CREATOR COME FROM?! How can you argue the simple fact of evolution and believe that god created everything, but cannot explain how god came from nothing. Your argument is as baseless as you are saying ours is.

The answer is in the Bible.
God has no beginning and no end.
There is nothing else that has those qualities.
The Word, angels, the universe, life all have a beginning.
They all have many possible endings but God does not have any possible ending.

All of that takes less faith than the belief in evolution.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by edmc^2

 

I think Mr. Comfort is telling the truth when he said there's nothing really there to add. What we saw in the interview is the main course.

You've been provided with evidence in this thread that Ray Comfort engages in exactly the kind of behavior he's being accused of by the people he interviewed. He has admitted, in his own words, to engaging in other dishonest tactics like quote mining. Yet you "think Mr. Comfort is telling the truth" without having all of the evidence in hand to support or refute that. And somehow you call the people being interviewed by Ray Comfort "fools".

What evidence?

The two videos provided were 3.5+ min each and highly edited by someone in order make it appear exactly what Mr. Comfort was being accused of. Would be nice to see the entire vid so that I'll have an idea what the questions was all about. What was the basis of the question?

As for who's the fool here - well, IF the Phud Professors and Scientists were smarter than you then why did they allow this "bananaman" con them into saying something they can't prove? That's all I'm saying here. I mean if a person like you can see through Mr. Comforts "lie" then why can't these highly educated men and women of science not see it? So it's either they are really smart or "fools".

Like Vasa Croe said - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me...

These men and women of science were take to the cleaners by The "bananaman". How ironic is that?