Just so you know, referring to someone three times with the same curse, in less than a paragraph, does not make you look rational, respectful, or intelligent.
Danica McKellar Becomes A Bible-Believing Christian After Leaving California
- Thread starter Shaka Zulu
- Start date
- Status
Asshole. Asshole. Asshole. Sometimes, a moniker just works so perfectly for an individual that I see no need to offer alternatives.
And exactly how does repeatedly insulting someone, just because you disagree with them, do anything whatsoever to further your cause?
I have no cause to further.
Other than pointing out that he's a asshole, of course.
Admittedly, yes...and I fully own up to my part in the responsibility for that. But in my own defense, I am not trying to pigeon-hole, abuse, or insult anyone on the forum. I'm just trying to make my case.
We are an odd group of people.
To quote Wendy Darling in Hook, "That is very true."
A theory (as in supposition) and a scientific theory are very different. Scientific theory means that something has been tested and re-tested etc to make sure the same result is forthcoming.
Edit: I think I may have lost sight of why I first responded. For the record, I don't actually care if you believe in evolution or not. It's all just discussion fuel.
Out of curiosity though, do you believe that the bible is the unassailable word of God? And if so, do you live by it 100%? And if not, why not? How do you choose which parts to ignore?
Last edited:
So explain this, then - how do you test something even once, let alone repeat the process, when you can't find what's supposed to be there in the actual fossil record? Evolutionists always cite "macro-evolution" as a combined form of proof for the other 5 types, but that's not how objective verification works. Science is primarily based on what you can see and touch, but the assumption that limited variation has somehow resulted in more prominent changes over billions of years is exactly that...an assumption. No one has ever seen as distinctly specific kind of creature give birth to one, that is significantly different from itself. But there's also many other problems, including but not limited to...
- Random mutations can't generate the genetic information needed for irreducible complexity.Unguided chemical processes can't explain the origin of any genetic code.
- Various "molecular machines" exist, which require multiple parts to be present before they could function, and confer any advantage on the organism. One famous example is the bacterial flagellum, a micro-molecular rotary-engine, functioning like an outboard motor on bacteria to propel it through liquid medium to find food.
- So-called "genetic drift" doesn't work, because random forces don't explain highly complex biological features (like DNA replication or bio-luminescence), which appear finely tuned to perform useful biological functions.
- Darwin himself recognized the fossil record did not document what he called “intermediate” varieties, saying directly that “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”
- Many evolutionists have said that humans somehow evolved from whales. But even taking that process in reverse, there are several problems - emergence of a blowhole, with musculature and nerve control; modification of the eye for permanent underwater vision; the ability to drink sea water; forelimbs transformed into flippers; modification of skeletal structure; the ability to nurse young underwater; the origin of tail flukes and musculature, and blubber for temperature insulation.
- For decades, evolutionists have claimed that our bodies and genomes are full of useless parts and genetic material ("junk DNA" or “vestigial organs"), showing life is the result of eons of unguided evolution. However, over time these predictions have not held true. As scientists have learned more about the workings of biology, important functions and purposes have been discovered for these body parts, including the tonsils, coccyx, thyroid, and appendix. So saying "we don't need them anymore" is completely ridiculous.
- Some have said that “people are born with a moral grammar wired into their neural circuits by evolution.” We do appear hard-wired for morality, but did this program come from unguided evolutionary processes? Natural selection cannot explain extreme acts of human kindness. Regardless of background or beliefs, upon finding strangers in danger, many people will risk their own lives to help them escape, with no evolutionary benefit to themselves. A popular example of this is Oskar Schindler, who risked his life to save more than a thousand Jews from execution in Hitler's gas chambers.
https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/
Oh look... it's something from the widely discredited Discovery Institute. Well known for misrepresenting facts in efforts to push their agenda.
"Widely discredited", huh? By whom, exactly - people who deem themselves correct only because they disagree with the possibility of the supernatural? I addressed my previous post to Tosk, and if he comes up with any reasonable or constructive responses to what I wrote, I'll do my best to answer him.
Nah, like I said above it doesn't really matter to me if we differ on evolution.
There was a second part to my post though, just mentioning it in case you missed it. I'll quote myself below.
Indeed.
A reminder to all please that we discuss post content, and don't attack posters. I have no objection in principle to religious topics being debated in this forum but let's stop it getting personal please, or I will need to step in.
the recurrent laryngeal nerve (most extreme in the giraffe) is iron clad evidence that we evolved from animals without necks.
There is nothing scientific about the Discovery Institute -- it's a conservative Christian think tank.
Intelligent Design is pseudoscience, dressed in a lab coat. It uses scientific-sounding terminology, with the intent of misleading those who are not versed in science and scientific method into believing that there is actually a coherent logic holding it all together.
But there's no there there. It's all holes. It's hokum from start to finish.
The writer of the list you cited, while he did earn a geology degree, is not a scientist. He's a lawyer and a Creationist. The book from which that list is an excerpt is not a scientific text.
When science contradicts the Bible, believers go to crazy lengths to justify their positions. It’s quite a thing to behold. Their hostility toward academia has, in part, helped make America dumber.
Evolution is a fact. “Intelligent Design” is creationism in a new suit. There is no debate. There is no “both sides.” This is flat earth, geocentric nonsense.
And nihilism is a rejection of religious principles, and moral principles that typically follow from it. If there is no source of universal truth and morality, all morality is subjective.
And when science contradicts their beliefs, atheists react identically. They and six-day creationists are more similar than either likes to admit.
Of course. Just as Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy is a fact. But the evidence states that neither of the two acted alone.
And "abiogenesis" puts a new coat of paint on "spontaneous generation".
- Status
Similar threads
