Questions for Evolution-Deniers

  • Thread starter Thread starter NowAgnostic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It takes a lot less faith than your lying creationist sources say. I have some experimental evidence to support abiogenesis, and I have a lot of experimental and observational evidence to support evolution. Every time a disease bacterium evolves immunity to an antibiotic I have more evidence for evolution. Where is you experimental observation of God directly creating even one kind? You have faith, because faith is all you can have in the absence of any experimental or observational evidence.

Please, for your own sake, learn something about biology before posting: “Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.” - Proverbs 17:28

Why would you expect one species to dominate? Different species are dominant in different environments. As long as there are different environments there will be different species that dominate in those environments.

Make it look very different to the fossil record we see today. Did your lying creationist sources tell you that we have fossilised dunes from ancient deserts? Deserts are just the sort of thing that are not seen in a global flood, yet we see them at many levels in the fossil record. Fifty years before Darwin published geologists were realising that the Noahic flood story did not reflect the geology they were seeing in the real world. Even Leonardo da Vinci had his doubts about the flood:"If the Deluge had carried the shells for distances of three and four hundred miles from the sea it would have carried them mixed with various other natural objects all heaped up together; but even at such distances from the sea we see the oysters all together and also the shellfish and the cuttlefish and all the other shells which congregate together, found all together dead; and the solitary shells are found apart from one another as we see them every day on the sea-shores.

“And we find oysters together in very large families, among which some may be seen with their shells still joined together, indicating that they were left there by the sea and that they were still living when the strait of Gibraltar was cut through. In the mountains of Parma and Piacenza multitudes of shells and corals with holes may be seen still sticking to the rocks…”

Leonardo da Vinci - Notebooks 1510.
Correct. Name one living organism that does not use RNA somewhere in its life cycle. All life on earth is related. You might also note that as a Buddhist I do not see the great separation that Christian doctrine imposes between humans and other animals.

The Bible has many different interpretations. Only someone with little knowledge of science would interpret the Bible as a science textbook.

Again, you are mistaken to trust your creationist sources when they tell you that it is impossible for the information in DNA to increase. It can increase. It has been shown to increase. It has been measured to increase. For an example read a scientific review paper such as Long et al (2003) The Origin of New Genes

Your problem is that you are not trusting in God, you are trusting in Answers in Genesis, in the Institute for Creation Research, in the Discovery Institute and all the other fallible human lying creationists who are misinforming you about evolution. God made the world, and if you take God to be trustworthy then you can accept what God’s world tells you about itself. To quote Saint Thomas Aquinas:“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”
  • Summa.By following the lies of AiG you are exposing Holy Scripture to the ridicule of unbelievers like me.
rossum
We know that bacteria have latent capabilities, rapidly exchange information horizontally and are quite adaptable.
 
Er, not really.disagree completely. One doesn’t choose to fall in love. It’s involuntary. And it needs the subject to exist before it can occur.
Note: I’m not talking about the sexual attraction that Hollywood has defined as “love.” I’m talking about the love of one person for another regardless of any lust that might be involved.

Good luck with your love life. I hope it lasts. A decision can last. The “I fell in love I couldn’t help myself” thing is not love, it is lust. If you subscribe to the “I couldn’t help myself” theory, then you should also subscribe to the “I fell out of love, I couldn’t help myself” theory. But we’ll just have to disagree about that for now…
Here’s a challenge for you which, by your argument, you should have no trouble achieving: fall in love with Santa.
The original Santa is Saint Nicholas. From what I know about him, I indeed choose to love him (not in the sexual sense of course). Really, our challenge is to love all humans as God loves us. We need to choose to do that. It’s not going to “just happen.”
Not true. I just can’t believe in something for which no evidence exists. I might be able to immerse myself in religious practices, go through the motions until one day, I might even brainwash myself into believing in God… maybe even using the same tired old arguments to defend my ‘faith’ that I see here all the time. But that would not be intellectually honest, and it certainly wouldn’t be proof that God exists.
OK - you want evidence. I actually don’t think that it’s an unreasonable request. If you are truly open to the existence of God (and are searching for God), but you want proof…

This has probably been said before, but try this. Talk to God. Tell him that you’d like to believe in him, but you need more proof. If God doesn’t exist, then you have nothing to lose. Prayers can be answered in 4 ways - 1. Yes (I’ll give you proof). 2. No (I won’t give you proof). 3. Yes, I’ll give you proof, but not yet. 4. Yes, I’ll give you proof, but not the particular “sign” you were looking for.

I’m a firm believer that if you seek God with an open mind, he will give you what you need to believe in him.
 
Please, for your own sake, learn something about biology before posting: “Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.” - Proverbs 17:28 By following the lies of AiG you are exposing Holy Scripture to the ridicule of unbelievers like me.rossum
A good place to start would be learning how to spell “species.”
 
Good luck with your love life. I hope it lasts. A decision can last. The “I fell in love I couldn’t help myself” thing is not love, it is lust. If you subscribe to the “I couldn’t help myself” theory, then you should also subscribe to the “I fell out of love, I couldn’t help myself” theory. But we’ll just have to disagree about that for now…
Well ricmat, it seems to me that “falling in love” and “working to love” or “learning to love” are two sides of one coin. I agree with rossum that to some extent “falling in love” is a matter of hormones and other factors beyond our conscious control. But growing in love is obviously a matter of conscious choice and commitment that escapes many in the Hollywood crowd, for whom (if one believes the tabloids) “falling out of love” is a natural sequel to “falling out of love.”

StAnastasia
 
I don’t know about rossum’s faith, but from his writing it is evident that he does have a university education.
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not {come to} know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that*** there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise***, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God.
 
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not {come to} know God God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God.
Have you proposed a topic on this theme to a national biology conference? It might be a change from their usual menu of evolution-related themes in biology, geology, and biochemistry.

Yours in happiness,
StAnastasia
 
It takes a lot less faith than your lying creationist sources say. I have some 👍 ** :rolleyes:** to support abiogenesis, and I have a lot of experimental and observational evidence to support evolution. LOL - You have zero Every time a disease bacterium evolves immunity to an antibiotic I have more evidence for evolution. Where is you experimental observation of God directly creating even one kind? You have faith, because faith is all you can have in the absence of any experimental or observational evidence.
The bacteria is degrading; should be improving.
“Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.” - Proverbs 17:28 'glad you looked at a Bible. Perhaps before posting you should read, study and analyze the Bible before you dismiss God.
Why would you expect one species to dominate? Different species are dominant in different environments. As long as there are different environments there will be different species that dominate in those environments.
As good a theory as any. Just based on your population models; your theory cannot be correct, there would be many many more fossils, especially of the human type and the world would be overpopulated beyond our imaginations, then we really would see survival of the fittest.
edit
The Bible has many different interpretations. Only someone with little knowledge of science would interpret the Bible as a science textbook.
there is one correct interpretation and many interpreters, just like the evolutionist, who have been caught lying on several occasions, just as the glorified meteorologist, called climatologist or “climate scientists” are phony.
Again, you are mistaken to trust your creationist sources when they tell you that it is impossible for the information in DNA to increase. It can increase. It has been shown to increase. It has been measured to increase. For an example read a scientific review paper such as Long et al (2003) The Origin of New Genes
No one said it can’t increase, but the increase is generally a defect, not an improvement.
Your problem is that you are not trusting in God, you are trusting in Answers in Genesis, in the Institute for Creation Research, in the Discovery Institute and all the other fallible human lying creationists who are misinforming you about evolution. God made the world, and if you take God to be trustworthy then you can accept what God’s world tells you about itself. To quote Saint Thomas Aquinas:“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”
  • Summa.
    By following the lies of AiG you are exposing Holy Scripture to the ridicule of unbelievers like me.
Continued
 
Not a single Christian would agree with that statement and if they did, then they are weak at best and most likely not one at all; as I said before, most people that profess to be a Christian are not according to Scripture. From my own experience; it certainly appears that way.

I have gone to the AIG site once during this conversation, what you call the “lying creationist” is from the “lying Bible” that you have such disregard for, which one day you will know the truth; let just hope you are still breathing.

Voltaire, he said this at the end of his life: “Strike out a few sages (or wise men) and the crowd of human beings is nothing but a horrible assemblage of unfortunate criminals and the globe contains nothing but corpses. I tremble to have to complain once more of the being of beings and casting an eye over this terrible picture. I wish I had never been born.”

H.G. Wells, another atheist, said: “There is no way out or around or through, it is the end.”

Mark Twain said this: “A myriad of men are born, they labor and sweat and struggle for bread. They squabble and scold and fight. They scramble for little mean advantages over each other. Age creeps upon them. Infirmities follow. Shames and humiliations bring down their prides and their vanities. Those they love are taken from them and the joy of life has turned to aching grief. The burden of pain and care and misery grows heavier year by year. At length, ambition is dead. Pride is dead. Vanity is dead. Longing for release is in their place. It comes at last. Death, the only unpoisoned gift earth ever had for them. And they vanish from a world where they were of no consequence, where they achieved nothing, where they were a mistake and a failure and a foolishness, where they have left no sign that they have existed, a world which will lament them a day and forget them forever. And then another myriad takes their place and copies all they did and goes along the same profitless road and vanishes as they vanished to make room for another and another and millions of myriads to follow the same arid path through the same desert and accomplish what the first myriad and all the myriads that came after it accomplished nothing.”

Bertrand Russell, “That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving, that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms, that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling can preserve an individual life beyond the grave, that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noon day brightness of human genius are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system and that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins. All these things if not quite beyond dispute are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.”

Pretty bleak life, isn’t it?

The psalmist said: “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil for…what?..Thou art with me.”

Realizing that he would soon be gone from this world one day, Moody said to a friend, "Someday you will read in the papers that D.L. Moody of Northfield is dead. Don’t you believe a word of it.
“At that moment I shall be more alive than I am now. I shall have gone higher, that is all–out of this old clay tenement into a house that is immortal, a body that sin cannot touch, that sin cannot taint, a body fashioned like His glorious body. I was born in the flesh in 1837; I was born of the Spirit in 1856. That which is born of the flesh may die; that which is born of the Spirit will live forever.”

Death for the Christian is an honourable discharge from the battles of life.

The dying words of Edward Payson: “The celestial city is full in my view. Its glories beam upon me, its breezes fan me, its odours are wafted to me, its sounds strike upon my ears, and its spirit is breathed into my heart. Nothing separates me from it but the river of death, which now appears but as an insignificant rill, that may be crossed at a single step, whenever God shall give permission. The Sun of Righteousness has been gradually drawing nearer and nearer, appearing larger and brighter as he approached, and now He fills the whole hemisphere; pouring forth a flood of glory, in which I seem to float like an insect in the beams of the sun; exulting, yet almost trembling, while I gaze on this excessive brightness, and wondering, with unutterable wonder, why God should deign thus to shine upon a sinful worm.”

Do you look forward to death; I do, not in a hurry, but desire to shed to sin-filled body.
 
No – very happy, thanks. Married, educated, employed, devout Catholic. The usual.
I doubt many Catholics in this forum would consider you devout; more like the cafeteria variety. Like I said before, it is obvious you are a very unhappy person, look at your list above, you left out the only source of true happiness from which all happiness is derived; speaking as a Christian.

Anyway, it is not my business and I will not say another word about it, that is between you and God.

Final note; God bless you with eyes to see and ears to hear; that you may have life and have it abundantly.

Timothy
 
I doubt many Catholics in this forum would consider you devout; more like the cafeteria variety. Like I said before, it is obvious you are a very unhappy person, look at your list above, you left out the only source of true happiness from which all happiness is derived; speaking as a Christian
Timothy, your resort to ad hominem attacks reflects immaturity as well as your general innocence of science and philosophy.
 
Note: I’m not talking about the sexual attraction that Hollywood has defined as “love.” I’m talking about the love of one person for another regardless of any lust that might be involved.
As am I.
Good luck with your love life. I hope it lasts.
And to you too. If your relationships are built on manufactured emotion then I feel sorry for you, your spouse and your family. Presumably you can control all your other emotions too - if your family were murdered in front of you, then you could “make a decision” to feel happy? What a load of cobblers you talk.
A decision can last. The “I fell in love I couldn’t help myself” thing is not love, it is lust.
You’re being incredibly naive here.
If you subscribe to the “I couldn’t help myself” theory, then you should also subscribe to the “I fell out of love, I couldn’t help myself” theory. But we’ll just have to disagree about that for now…
And it’s a valid theory - people fall out of love all the time. So the empirical data supports the fact of emotion over stony-faced decision-making.
The original Santa is Saint Nicholas. From what I know about him, I indeed choose to love him (not in the sexual sense of course). Really, our challenge is to love all humans as God loves us. We need to choose to do that. It’s not going to “just happen.”
Don’t be flippant. I want you to agree to choose to fall in love with a jolly fat man that climbs down the chimney every year to deliver presents. Do you accept? If it’s that easy to choose to have an emotion about an unproven entity, then prove it!
OK - you want evidence. I actually don’t think that it’s an unreasonable request. If you are truly open to the existence of God (and are searching for God), but you want proof…

This has probably been said before, but try this. Talk to God. Tell him that you’d like to believe in him, but you need more proof. If God doesn’t exist, then you have nothing to lose. Prayers can be answered in 4 ways - 1. Yes (I’ll give you proof). 2. No (I won’t give you proof). 3. Yes, I’ll give you proof, but not yet. 4. Yes, I’ll give you proof, but not the particular “sign” you were looking for.
Right - so I talk to someone in whom I don’t believe, then what? Something good happens, and I just accept it as a sign? Does nothing good ever happen anyway? This idea of ‘talk to God, then you may receive a sign’ is nothing but the propagation of iron-age superstition. It’s utterly ludicrous and totally irrational.
I’m a firm believer that if you seek God with an open mind, he will give you what you need to believe in him.
Clearly you are. That doesn’t prove anything at all, other than you have faith. I wouldn’t dream of denying you your faith. I’m not even saying that faith is a bad thing, just an irrational one.
 
Well ricmat, it seems to me that “falling in love” and “working to love” or “learning to love” are two sides of one coin. I agree with rossum that to some extent “falling in love” is a matter of hormones and other factors beyond our conscious control. But growing in love is obviously a matter of conscious choice and commitment that escapes many in the Hollywood crowd, for whom (if one believes the tabloids) “falling out of love” is a natural sequel to “falling out of love.”

StAnastasia
Absolutely. I may have implied in my previous post that I don’t believe in working to improve and maintain a relationship. Of course you must, and that must be a conscious choice. However, the emotion (love) is the end result, not the choice itself. You can choose to do your best to maintain your relationship, but you can’t just choose to love someone and call it job done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top