CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
I no longer believe in Evolution.
That's right. I no longer believe in the flawed concept of evolution. I don't care what “well educated" scientists say. They just believe in it because they have no other explanation. Evolution is as false as can be.
Let's look at evidence. Similarity between creatures? What, so do you want animals to be 100% different to each other? They are a part of a specific group known as the animal kingdom. Of course there will be similarities if they are a part of the same group. There are millions of different species anyway. There is bound to be countless similairities between different animals.
What about fossil evidence? Exactly! What about fossil evidence? Where is it? Different species layered on top of each other provides NO evidence whatsoever. If evolution exists then there should be fossils showing the very gradual changes in species.
And seriously. How can evolution create such complex things? How did it get the idea of sight, hearing, smelling, taste or FEELING. It can't just randomly appear out of nowhere.
That being said, I no longer believe in evolution. You can go and take your extremely unscientific theory elsewhere.
Thats your right to deny the evidence for evolution , if you have a counter theory the scientific community would be only too willing to listen so why not present your counter theory ?
If you do not trust scientists or scientific methods for reaching conclusions about evolution well you're really in a very small minority of individuals who dismiss the irrefutable evidence for evolution .
Very small minority! 40%, possibly more, of Americans don't believe in evolution. And my counter theory: God. But science shouldn't be making up theories just because they don't have an answer. And the evidence is not irrefutable. I just debunked all the “evidence".
No, it is not just America. Besides, I'm not even American. And just because you lie in a slight minority does not mean that you are wrong. Are Atheists wrong because they are a minority.
WOW! You just "debunked" the scientific community with a book of hearsay. With a mythical "story" that was cobbled together centuries after the "fact", from a bunch of broken stone tablets and Papyrus fragments, most with no KNOWN authors, NO, proof or witnesses that can be confirmed, stories carried from campfire to campfire by largely uneducated goat herders and camel jockeys, and this "evidence" is "irrefutable"!??
Much of that 40% are CYA Christians, or, as Voltaire put it: "God is a comedian, playing to an audience to afraid to laugh."
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "pantokrator," or Universal Ruler....2
Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where....God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance.…It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and every where....And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearance of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.3
"Science and religion are about fundamentally different things. No religion has ever been rendered obsolete by facts or observations, but this happens to most scientific theories, at least in the long run. Science advances over the wreckage of its theories by continually putting theoretical ideas to experimental test; no matter how beautiful a theoretical idea might be, it must be discarded if it is at odds with experiment. Like any other human activity, science has flaws and does not always flow smoothly, but no one can seriously doubt the progress it has made in helping us understand the world and in helping to underpin technology."
We refuse to doubt science cos of technology.
So people like aristotle made noise about evolution and morons believed in it.
Mean while most of the greatest science geniuses to ever live on the surface of this planet were theists(including aristotle) who doubted evolution(except aristotle and others).
Believing in evolution is almost 90% denying the existence of God.
Cos there can be God and same time evolution. In the sense that it was God who designed it to be so.(evolutionary world).
"So they have their place and their use. Now to our question whether the greatest philosophers were theists or atheists. The greatest philosophers on my list are Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Socrates, and Spinoza. All of these are theists of one sort or another."
Moron. You did not even know what you were supposed to look for
Brief:
"Evolutionary thought, the conception that species change over time, has roots in antiquity - in the ideas of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Chinese as well as in medieval Islamic science. With the beginnings of modern biological taxonomy in the late 17th century, two opposed ideas influenced Western biological thinking:
essentialism, the belief that every species has essential characteristics that are unalterable, a concept which had developed from medieval Aristotelian metaphysics, and that fit well with natural theology
the development of the new anti-Aristotelian approach to modern science: as the Enlightenment progressed, evolutionary cosmology and the mechanical philosophy spread from the physical sciences to natural history"
True idiot, exhibiting your art in flying colours. You need to be applauded really. You don't even know who made this debate. Now you are the one behaving like an idiotic delusional blue chicken.lol
Am boneheaded with no brain yet you are able to give feedback to my messages. Its like we speak the same language of bone heads..........tell me your story, what happened to your brain. Did your delusional blue chicken mummy eat it up too? I know you understand me fellow bonehead.....waiting......... feedback
You are motivating what? Lol....Don't make me bite my ears. You are as dumb as your genes. You can't even make out figure of speeches.........into simple sense....
Anything you wanna know about delusional chicken...ask mummy she is well informed and updated.
Ofcourse your pinata brain will never see sense no matter how it is packaged...........you just an idiot by birth ...not your fault...accept it already...
Now i am well illuminated on how you motivate rationality. Am applauding your pinata brain right now...................。。。。。.......。。。。。...................。。。。。....
Moronic joseph. I can't say anymore to you. Someone whose brain cannot identify figure of speeches............................................................................................
A TREMENDOUS amount of knowledge has appeared since ANY of these intellectuals existed. I'm sure many of these would look at things differently were they around today. A college student of today has more "KNOWLEDGE" than they had ... partly attributable TO THEM, obviously.
As Einstein said, a bit more recently ... "I am a deeply religious non-believer ... this is a somewhat new kind of religion." And also: "To take those fools in clerical garb seriously is to show them too much honor."
Yes , very small minority , 40 per cent of Americans whilst the rest of the world waits for them to catch up .
Your counter theory is God oookay ; so science is making up theories , and this coming from a guy who believes in virgin births , zombies , and talking serpents, ok got ya .
America, and the entire world are two very different compositions of people. Americans are just flat out ignorant to a lot of things for absolutely no reason. This being one of them.
"But the OP said he ' debunked ' evolution so I'm still waiting on his counter theory ."
As stated previously (and apparently ignored), failing to provide a replacement for an explanatory theory is no grounds for said theory's validity. In other words, not having a different explanation doesn't mean that the current one is correct.
"Who says ? Well Charles Darwin for one who often referred to the science of evolution"
Ah, so because Darwin said Evolution is scientific, it must be?
"Why not not try something novel like a google search and type in irrefutable evidence for evolution ?"
For the simple reason that this is a debate platform. In actual, physical debates, you are required to provide substantiation for your claims, not demand your opponents to do so for you. I fail to see how an online debate should differ in that regard. You're the one trying to prove your claim, not me, so why should I be obligated to find substantiation for it?
But the current theory is correct and accepted by the majority of people worldwide as the findings as I've said are indeed irrefutable.
Also your pal made some rather strong statements which he has not backed up as in .....
He said ........ I no longer believe in the flawed concept of evolution. I don't care what “well educated" scientists say. They just believe in it because they have no other explanation. Evolution is as false as can be.....
Yes no other explanation is necessary as the theory has been tested and found to be correct
He then says .....
Let's look at evidence. Similarity between creatures? What, so do you want animals to be 100% different to each other? They are a part of a specific group known as the animal kingdom. Of course there will be similarities if they are a part of the same group. There are millions of different species anyway. There is bound to be countless similairities between different animals.
What about fossil evidence? Exactly! What about fossil evidence? Where is it? Different species layered on top of each other provides NO evidence whatsoever. If evolution exists then there should be fossils showing the very gradual changes in species.
And seriously. How can evolution create such complex things? How did it get the idea of sight, hearing, smelling, taste or FEELING. It can't just randomly appear out of nowhere......
Obviously he has not studied the subject and is just going off on a personal rant .
He then says .....
That being said, I no longer believe in evolution. You can go and take your extremely unscientific theory elsewhere.
Now that's really mature unscientific views ?
and what's hilarious is he is mocking science but supporting superstitious nonsense as in goodidit
So tell me if you don't want evolution to be called scientific what do you want to call it seeing as your so upset at this outrage ?
Yes it is a debate platform and the claims I make are not my claims but originally Charles Darwins who's claim I support , and you strangely ask me to substantiate my claims but do not ask your pal to do so as he is the one who said he longer believed in evolution and his explanation is merely three letters GOD .... oddly enough he has since deleted the God part , wonder why ?
Incidentally I'm not trying to prove a claim it's proven for the majority of rational people :) all thats left really are 40 per cent of the religious nuts in America who are not taken seriously
"But the current theory is correct and accepted by the majority of people worldwide as the findings as I've said are indeed irrefutable."
I shouldn't have to state this, but just because you claim irrefutable proof of your claims exists, doesn't mean that it actually does. To substantiate this claim, you would have to provide the actual evidence.
"Obviously he has not studied the subject and is just going off on a personal rant ."
While the OP's statements are somewhat general, dismissing them with a blanket statement is both unhelpful and ironic.
"and what's hilarious is he is mocking science"
Their denial of the Theory of Evolution isn't "mocking science", it's denying the scientific validity of a "scientific" theory. Attacking a scientific theory is not equivalent to attacking science itself.
"So tell me if you don't want evolution to be called scientific what do you want to call it seeing as your so upset at this outrage ?"
Seeing as the Theory of Evolution has yet to be found exclusively consistent with an entire generation of data, and thus qualify as a Scientific Theory, it'd probably be best to call it a hypothesis.
"Yes it is a debate platform and the claims I make are not my claims but originally Charles Darwins who's claim I support"
So, because the inspiration behind your claims originates with Darwin, you're exempt from requiring substantiation for said claims?
"and you strangely ask me to substantiate my claims but do not ask your pal to do so"
Why would I expect substantiation of claims from a person who, A. is not someone I'm debating with, and B. has already provided such substantiation, or at least pointed to substantiation with which I'm familiar?
"as he is the one who said he longer believed in evolution and his explanation is merely three letters GOD"
Yes, their only justification for their lack of belief in Evolution is just "God", if you ignore the middle section of the post. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe they provided several examples of fundamental flaws in the Theory of Evolution.
"Incidentally I'm not trying to prove a claim it's proven for the majority of rational people :) all thats left really are 40 per cent of the religious nuts in America who are not taken seriously"
If you define "rational" as "following the current scientific orthodoxy", you're certainly correct.
I'll say this once more, as I cannot stress it enough: you continually claim that the evidence for the Theory of Evolution is irrefutable, yet you refuse to provide any such evidence, instead opting to force more, still unsubstantiated, claims of irrefutibility into your arguments. I hope you realize that piling many instances of the same claim on top of one another doesn't make that claim true.
What's more, this claim you're making, that a Scientific Theory can be proven with complete certainty (the fallaciousness of which I believe I've covered previously), is nothing short of extraordinary, and thus requires evidence of an extraordinary nature. If such wholly irrefutable evidence, the implications of which must be completely certain, is not present, your claims are based on faith, and faith alone. Oh, the irony.
No again you fail to comprehend the written word , it's not just because I claim irrefutable evidence but because the evidence for evolution is irrefutable ; the evidence is there with one click for you to read why are you not doing so ?
His statements are not somewhat general, his statements make no sense , which is not a blanket statement but is actual fact ,
How this is ironic is possibly an ' in joke ' between you and your pal .
It actually is making a mockery of science , what is he attacking it with please tell me as I've seen nothing yet
You'd probably call it a hypothesis ? Well good for you no one really cares what you call it do they ?
What's this ' entire generation of data ' you speak off ..
Inspiration behind my claims comes from the body of knowledge gathered since Darwin first printed his groundbreaking work ; and its there for everyone with a simple google search :)
Your pal has already provided substantiation you're familiar with please supply a link ?
Several flaws in the theory of evolution were supplied ?
Tell me why these ' flaws ' were not even given a cursory check on one of the many evolution sites ?
If you wish I will supply you and your pal with a reputable source .
Your last point is ridiculous to say the least as you want me to explain and answer any questions you and your pal have on evolution because you are either trolling or refuse to read the tons of information that are available with a quick google search ; so again do you want a source that specialises in evolution to answer your questions ?
The evidence is indeed irrefutable by you saying it's not matters not a difference to me and is wholly expected .... godidit
"it's not just because I claim irrefutable evidence but because the evidence for evolution is irrefutable ; the evidence is there with one click for you to read why are you not doing so ?"
I've gone over the problems with both of those statements. If you're going to ignore my arguments, we're not going to get anywhere.
"his statements make no sense , which is not a blanket statement but is actual fact ,"
On what basis?
"How this is ironic is possibly an ' in joke ' between you and your pal ."
First of all, I'm not familiar with the OP. Just because we happen to take the same stance on an issue doesn't mean that we're "pals".
Second, the irony I was referring to was your basis of faith for your arguments, when you claim others' arguments to be based on faith.
"It actually is making a mockery of science , what is he attacking it with please tell me as I've seen nothing yet"
Once again, repeating identical claims doesn't make them true. How, exactly, is the OP mocking science as a whole in their post?
"You'd probably call it a hypothesis ? Well good for you no one really cares what you call it do they ?"
How rude. Did you not ask, in your previous post, what the Theory of Evolution should be called, if not "scientific"?
"What's this ' entire generation of data ' you speak off .."
Basically what it says on the tin.
"Your pal has already provided substantiation you're familiar with please supply a link ?"
To what, exactly? Specific evidence supporting their statements? Sure.
On so-called "homologous" structures (the OP's first argument):
If you'd like, I could find several more sources for each of these, but I believe this should be sufficient.
"Several flaws in the theory of evolution were supplied ?"
Once again, I'm compelled to ask whether you've read the original post or not. Contained in said post are several arguments against the validity of Evolution, each pointing out an apparent flaw with the theory. I don't know how I can be any more clear than that.
"Tell me why these ' flaws ' were not even given a cursory check on one of the many evolution sites ?"
So now I'm responsible for divining the motivations of hundreds of strangers? Lovely. Well, if I had to guess (don't quote me on this), I'd say that people who created these websites both/either have an agenda (perpetuating the scientific orthodoxy) and/or have absolute (faith-based) belief in Evolution.
That, however, isn't even relevant to this discussion.
"If you wish I will supply you and your pal with a reputable source ."
Great. I'd be glad to have one. I've only been requesting it since your first claim of Evolution's irrefutability.
"Your last point is ridiculous to say the least as you want me to explain and answer any questions you and your pal have on evolution"
Questions? I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was on "Yahoo Answers". Oh, wait... the website's URL is "createdebate.com". One would think that this is a debate platform, and not a platform for merely posing questions. I wasn't demanding you provide me with answers for personal questions, I was expecting you to provide substantiation for your arguments, a responsibility you seem all too willing to attempt to thrust on me.
"because you are either trolling or refuse to read the tons of information that are available with a quick google search"
Yes, how horrible of me for refusing to come up with substantiation for you on a debate platform.
"so again do you want a source that specialises in evolution to answer your questions ?"
Once again, I don't have questions, I have arguments, at least ultimately. And I've been requesting substantiation from you since this discussion began.
The problems ? I haven't ignored your statements I addressed them several times I've asked do you want more information on evolution ?
Do you want a link to sources ?
His statements make no sense because it's obvious he has not researched the topic and again to say evolution is unscientific is nonsense no matter how many ways you try and say it's not .
Interesting how believers try and shoe - horn that word into anything regarding science as in ' faith ' which is based on spiritual conviction rather than proof ,
Which is why any argument you or your pal may have is void of implication the real world. .
Read his post again and ignore what he says yet again ..." well educated " scientists etc,etc , they are very convenient when they provide medicines , technology and new innovations to society aren't they ?
They only becme problematic when they disagree with young earth creationists .
No why i said is not rude ; you want to re -title the theory of evolution and re -brand it to suit your agenda , again no one ecept you cares and that's a fact .
Still waiting in this ' entire generation of data ' why ares you's hiding it from the world of science ?
Oh dear , is that it ....Answers in Genesis which is based on pseudoscience , that's your counter to Evolution ?
Ken Ham is seen in most of the world as barking mad and one only has to look at the Hilarious Noah's ark park to see how utterly insane the man is ... only in the Us could this nonsense be given any serious consideration ...
( AiG) is a fundamentalist Christian apologetics parachurch organization. It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, with a particular focus on a pseudoscientific young Earth creationism which rejects any results of scientific investigation which do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative. The organization sees evolution as incompatible with scripture and believes anything other than the young earth view is a compromise on biblical inerrancy.
AiG began as the Creation Science Foundation in 1980, following the merger of two Australian creationist groups. Its name changed to Answers in Genesis in 1994, when Ken Ham founded the organization's United States branch. In 2006 the branches in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa split from the US and UK to form Creation Ministries International. In 2007, AiG opened the Creation Museum, a facility that promotes young Earth creationism, and in 2016 the organization opened the Ark Encounter, a Noah's Ark themed amusement park. AiG also publishes websites, magazines, and journals.
I've asked you several times do you want links to Evolution sites ?
Now at last you ask for a source good :)
Again you fail to realise that I told you over six times now that a quick google search will answer any of your questions regards Evolution , why do you act as if you want me personally to address any of you or your pals concerns regarding evolution bwhen it's obvious you never even bothered to do any research ?
No again you're not ' substantiating ' me you're refusing to research evolution as can be seen by you and upon pals ignorance on the matter
I'm not interested in your ' arguments ' because no in fact you have no arguments as can be proved by the links you posted to a site run by a lunatic and young earth creationist ; the place for Ham is indeed yahoo answers and not suprisingly I see his buddy is Ray Comfort the banana man ... and this site is the source you use to discredit evolution ?
Wonder would the Nobel comittee accept its findings :)
The problems ? I haven't ignored your statements I addressed them several times I've asked do you want more information on evolution ?
Do you want a link to sources ?
His statements make no sense because it's obvious he has not researched the topic and again to say evolution is unscientific is nonsense no matter how many ways you try and say it's not .
Interesting how believers try and shoe - horn that word into anything regarding science as in ' faith ' which is based on spiritual conviction rather than proof ,
Which is why any argument you or your pal may have is void of implication the real world. .
Read his post again and ignore what he says yet again ..." well educated " scientists etc,etc , they are very convenient when they provide medicines , technology and new innovations to society aren't they ?
They only becme problematic when they disagree with young earth creationists .
No why i said is not rude ; you want to re -title the theory of evolution and re -brand it to suit your agenda , again no one ecept you cares and that's a fact .
Still waiting in this ' entire generation of data ' why ares you's hiding it from the world of science ?
Oh dear , is that it ....Answers in Genesis which is based on pseudoscience , that's your counter to Evolution ?
Ken Ham is seen in most of the world as barking mad and one only has to look at the Hilarious Noah's ark park to see how utterly insane the man is ... only in the Us could this nonsense be given any serious consideration ...
( AiG) is a fundamentalist Christian apologetics parachurch organization. It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, with a particular focus on a pseudoscientific young Earth creationism which rejects any results of scientific investigation which do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative. The organization sees evolution as incompatible with scripture and believes anything other than the young earth view is a compromise on biblical inerrancy.
AiG began as the Creation Science Foundation in 1980, following the merger of two Australian creationist groups. Its name changed to Answers in Genesis in 1994, when Ken Ham founded the organization's United States branch. In 2006 the branches in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa split from the US and UK to form Creation Ministries International. In 2007, AiG opened the Creation Museum, a facility that promotes young Earth creationism, and in 2016 the organization opened the Ark Encounter, a Noah's Ark themed amusement park. AiG also publishes websites, magazines, and journals.
I've asked you several times do you want links to Evolution sites ?
Now at last you ask for a source good :)
Again you fail to realise that I told you over six times now that a quick google search will answer any of your questions regards Evolution , why do you act as if you want me personally to address any of you or your pals concerns regarding evolution bwhen it's obvious you never even bothered to do any research ?
No again you're not ' substantiating ' me you're refusing to research evolution as can be seen by you and upon pals ignorance on the matter
I'm not interested in your ' arguments ' because no in fact you have no arguments as can be proved by the links you posted to a site run by a lunatic and young earth creationist ; the place for Ham is indeed yahoo answers and not suprisingly I see his buddy is Ray Comfort the banana man ... and this site is the source you use to discredit evolution ?
Wonder would the Nobel comittee accept its findings :)
This will answer any questions you or your pal may have on the minute detail of evolution as you willl appreciate it's a difficult subject and we have not the luxury of merely saying godidit
"The problems ? I haven't ignored your statements I addressed them several times I've asked do you want more information on evolution ?"
If you haven't ignored my statements, as you claim, then why are you still asking whether I'd like substantiation regarding your claims about Evolution?
"to say evolution is unscientific is nonsense no matter how many ways you try and say it's not ."
...A claim that, despite this discussion having gone back and forth several times, you have yet to do anything with but repeat.
"nteresting how believers try and shoe - horn that word into anything regarding science as in ' faith ' which is based on spiritual conviction rather than proof ,"
Actually, I haven't heard any of my fellow Creationists claim anything else in the scientific realm to be based on faith. If examples that back up your claim exists, feel free to share them.
" they are very convenient when they provide medicines , technology and new innovations to society aren't they ?"
First of all, there are many facets of scientific study, and the vast majority of scientists specialize in a particular field, so implying that because the OP attacked the statements made by a specific group of scientists, they attacked all scientists, is absurd.
Second, the OP never attacked, nor provided any implication of attacking, science in general. The idea that any attack on any Scientific Theory is attacking the notion of science itself is, like the previous one, absurd. Science is fundamentally based on dissension; if no one disagreed with a Scientific Theory (which, as you imply, is an attack on science itself), no progress, intellectual or practical, could take place.
"They only becme problematic when they disagree with young earth creationists ."
Now you're entering the realm of complete irrelevance. The OP never once mentioned God, or anything to do with Creationism. They were attacking a specific theory, with specific arguments against it, that in no way attacked or could be construed as having attacked science in general, especially based on a perspective of Creationism.
"No why i said is not rude"
Last I checked, asking for information, then responding to the providing of said information with a snide comment, is not only rude, but disturbingly childish.
"you want to re -title the theory of evolution and re -brand it to suit your agenda"
Well, actually, I stated that, if I were to be the sole determining factor, I'd label the Theory of Evolution as an unsubstantiated hypothesis. Why? Because it is consistent with nowhere near enough data to be considered a legitimate Scientific Theory. That's not an agenda, that's the scientific method.
"Still waiting in this ' entire generation of data ' why ares you's hiding it from the world of science ?"
When I use the term "generation of data", I'm referring simply to the currently available data on a given matter. In the case of Evolution, the "generation of data" it would be required to be consistent with to be rightly considered a Scientific Theory would be the majority of data we currently possess on the matters of biology, paleontology/archaeology, and a few other areas. My use of this term is not some esoteric ritual, it's just a simple statement used for brevity. Why you've fixated on this is beyond me.
"Oh dear , is that it ....Answers in Genesis which is based on pseudoscience , that's your counter to Evolution ?"
First of all, that was just a single article, found with a quick Google search (yet again, ironic). As previously stated, I could easily find several more.
Second, denying evidence as "pseudoscientific" without any actual articulated basis, much like claiming ideas to be irrefutably true because you said so, is an unhelpful, fallacious method of argumentation.
"Ken Ham is seen in most of the world as barking mad"
Who entitled you to speak for the majority of the world?
"Now at last you ask for a source good :)"
Yes, after several posts in which I requested substantiation, I've "finally" asked.
"Again you fail to realise that I told you over six times now that a quick google search will answer any of your questions regards Evolution"
Again you fail to realize that I told you several times now that I'm not asking you questions to address personal concerns regarding the Theory of Evolution; I'm requesting you provide substantiation for your arguments.
"when it's obvious you never even bothered to do any research ?"
Is that so? I'd ignore this accusation, other than for its personal and serious nature. If you'd like to provide any basis for this claim, other than "it's true because it's irrefutable, and it's irrefutable because I said so", please do.
"I'm not interested in your ' arguments ' because no in fact you have no arguments as can be proved by the links you posted to a site run by a lunatic and young earth creationist"
So, let me get this straight: because the evidence I linked to is, in your opinion, fallacious, I "don't have any arguments". The implications of that claim go along very nicely with my suspicion that you aren't actually reading my arguments: first you repeat the same, unsubstantiated, claims over and over again, then you decide to wait to fulfill my requests for substantiation until you actually ask me if I'd like you to, and now, to put the icing on the cake, you ignore the fact that I've had several, relatively lengthy, posts, which clearly contain more than gibberish in them. Given that, and the fact that this is a debate platform, one would think that I'd have at least one argument in all of these paragraphs, but apparently not.
"the place for Ham is indeed yahoo answers"
The irony of this situation is no longer amusing.
"... and this site is the source you use to discredit evolution ?"
Not an exclusive source, by any means, but if you'd like to extrapolate that (however unfairly) from my statements, clearly I can't stop you.
I must admit: when I saw that link, I was somewhat excited. "Finally", I thought, "he might actually provide evidence for his arguments". But, of course, when I click on the link, I'm immediately directed to an archive. An archive, of course, is not itself a piece of evidence, but a collection of files which could be pieces of evidence. I suppose I was too optimistic in expecting you to understand how evidence works in debate: in a physical debate, when you provide evidence to support your arguments, you state a direct quote from your source, substantiation for that source's validity, and finally, if necessary, an explanation as to that quote's relevance to your argument. Obviously, in an online debate, the criteria for admitting evidence for an argument is much more simple, accommodating affair, in which you are able to provide an entire article as evidence, rather than a short quote, but you can't just toss a large, wide-spanning archive at your opponent, and expect them to rifle through it and figure out what part of it is supposed to justify your claims.
Again you miss the point every time I asked if you wanted a link to a source dealing with evolution show me where I asked if you would like ' substantiation ' ?
Ok , so yes you're talking nonsense .
But young earth creationists are supporters of pseudoscience which is nonsense , and yes their claims are indeed faith based as in the young earth model .
As pointed out several times now your pal made a dismissive mockery of science and scientists by his " well educated " remark which you keep ignoring and his ridiculous ' Evolution is as false as can be '
No progress practical or otherwise could be made unless no one disagreed with a scientific theory , depends on the theory and how solid it is and who is disagreeing Evoulution is accepted worldwide as fact ; how come none of these opponents of evolution ever even put a case forward to the scientific community ?
Wrong yet again , the OP said in his original post that the answer to the whole question of the how was GOD , I've told you this already and you disengenously attempt to avoid it whys that ?
At least be honest in your replies please .
You may find the remark I made disturbingly childish but that's what I find you to be honestly as well as arrogant ; you keep missing the point don't you it's called The theory of Evolution .... get over it .
That's the scientific method :) is it indeed wonder why we still call it the Theory of Evolution ?
Looks like no one else really agrees with you doesn't it ?
You dismissing Evolution as a legitimate scientific theory is meaningless and makes you sound unbalanced .
Again incorrect , to direct me to a site which is owned and directed by a lunatic is hardly helpful , I had a trawl through the site and thankfully this nonsense is only taken seriously by the looney fringe , actually the reference I posted regarding the site is from wiki who also claim it's a site that supports pseudoscientific nonsense .
Do your own worldwide search on how Ham and Comfort ( banana man ) are perceived worldwide and you will see most rational people think them insane at best .
Yes you finally asked for a source ...ask and you shall receive :)
If you want substantiation for arguments where I claimed Evolution was irrefutable I've told you over 10 times now to do your own search , if you do not or are too lazy to do so you got to ask yourself why ?
No as said before you have no arguments against the Theory the minute you posted links to the crackpot site that proved it .
Your last chapter is hilarious and you post this after directing me to a site run by a nut job who who has a theme park with an ark in it ..... now that's the scientific approach :)
"But young earth creationists are supporters of pseudoscience which is nonsense"
To what "pseudoscience" are you referring?
"and yes their claims are indeed faith based as in the young earth model ."
Okay. Prove it.
"As pointed out several times now your pal made a dismissive mockery of science and scientists by his " well educated " remark which you keep ignoring and his ridiculous ' Evolution is as false as can be '"
Sarcasm and/or irony, when used against specific persons, is not equivalent to the entire system said persons are a part of.
"depends on the theory and how solid it is"
Regardless of how initially valid a Scientific Theory appears, it's always, I repeat, always subject to abolition. No one Scientific Theory should be treated as more infallible than others; the only reason one could reasonably considered more "solid" than others is by the weight of evidence backing it up, and even that only goes so far.
"Evoulution is accepted worldwide as fact"
Being that Evolution is supposedly a Scientific Theory, the only people who accept it as "fact" are those who either don't understand how science works or those who deliberately disregard how science works.
"how come none of these opponents of evolution ever even put a case forward to the scientific community ?"
Many have been. I can think of, off the top of my head, several debates done over the matter.
"Wrong yet again , the OP said in his original post that the answer to the whole question of the how was GOD?"
Actually, as you previously pointed out, the OP didn't provide any alternative to Evolution; they simply refuted it. Now your arguments are becoming self-contradictory.
" I've told you this already and you disengenously attempt to avoid it whys that ?"
What, exactly, did I "attempt to avoid"?
"At least be honest in your replies please ."
Touché.
"you keep missing the point don't you it's called The theory of Evolution .... get over it ."
Indeed. It is called the Theory of Evolution. And it's just that; a theory. If you'd like to nitpick, it's been pushed as a Scientific Theory, but even if it was, it'd still just be a theory.
"Looks like no one else really agrees with you doesn't it ?"
Other than the hundreds of millions of Creationists in the world?
"You dismissing Evolution as a legitimate scientific theory is meaningless"
How so?
" to direct me to a site which is owned and directed by a lunatic is hardly helpful "
Once again, you have yet to provide any evidence to support your claims.
" thankfully this nonsense is only taken seriously by the looney fringe"
You know this how?
"Do your own worldwide search on how Ham and Comfort ( banana man ) are perceived worldwide and you will see most rational people think them insane at best ."
First of all, in a debate, you're responsible for undermining your opponent's evidence; don't expect them to do it for you.
Second, that was, as previously stated multiple times, a single source out of possibly hundreds. That that one specific source is allegedly flawed doesn't mean it's the only source, by any means.
"Yes you finally asked for a source ...ask and you shall receive :)"
I requested substantiation for your claims. Expecting your opponent to, as previously stated, find your evidence for you is wholly inappropriate in a debate.
"If you want substantiation for arguments where I claimed Evolution was irrefutable I've told you over 10 times now to do your own search"
If I were personally interested in finding the irrefutibility of Evolution (I have been), then, yes, I would have researched it on my own. Seeing as this is a debate, however, and not a Q/A session, I am not responsible for substantiating your claims, you are. In a debate, saying "I'm right, and if you disagree with me, look it up" is completely inappropriate.
"No as said before you have no arguments against the Theory"
In this debate, my arguments have admittedly been focused more towards invalidating yours than attacking Evolution. That doesn't mean that I "have no arguments" against it, of course, just that I choose not to use them, seeing as they have yet to be relevant to this discussion.
"the minute you posted links to the crackpot site that proved it ."
Let's assume that you're completely correct for a minute: sure, the source I linked to is completely flawed. That doesn't mean that it doesn't "have any arguments", however; an argument is, flawed or not, an argument. It will never stop being an argument just because you don't like it.
"Your last chapter is hilarious and you post this after directing me to a site run by a nut job who who has a theme park with an ark in it ..... now that's the scientific approach :)"
Why you see fit to hold me personally responsible for the actions of a man who I haven't the faintest knowledge of is beyond me. I simply found the first link available for use as evidence, looked through the article to make sure it was relevant, and posted it. Your association of me with this person for simply using an article of theirs as a source is nothing short of a childish "ad hominem" attack.
While originally this was somewhat entertaining, your obnoxious repetition of claims, refusal to substantiate said claims, and personal attacks have grown wearying. If you're willing to act like a rational, civil adult, and treat this like a debate, I'd be quite happy to continue this discussion. If you don't agree to these completely reasonable terms, however, I will refrain from speaking with you again, as it will be clear to me that you have no interest in the aforementioned rational, civil discussion.
Young earth creationism and the idea of Intrlligent design ....
pseudoscience
ˈsjuːdəʊˌsʌɪəns/
noun
a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
A belief in intelligent design is faith based
Seems to upset you when applied to your creationist sites
The weight of evidence behind evolution is solid and the chances of it being subject to abolition are virtually zero
Not supposedly , it is a scientific theory and fact and you truly should stop making ridiculous statements they only make look foolish , let me once again educate you ......
Biologist Richard Lenski says , scientific understanding requires both FACTS and theories that can explain these facts in a coherent manner .
Evolution in this context is both a fact and a theory .
It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed or EVOlVED during the history of life on earth .
Incidentally this is also irrefutable , I think you may be getting confused with pseudoscience .
Yes , you can think of many debates and so can I where every one of the debaters has been destroyed who argued against evolution ; I'm asking for their counter theories and peer reviewed papers that challenge evolution " off the top,of your head " if you can
Your pal ' refuted ' evolution which means he proved the theory wrong or false and he also deleted his counter theory which was a creator GOD is responsible , so why are you deliberately lying and why are you posting up links to two Intelligent design sites for the OP if you claim he didn't provide any alternative ?
Again a good liar needs a good memory and this proves who the contradictory one is doesn't it ?
You attempted to avoid the fact your pal deleted his God comment ..... remember ?
Eh , touché ? As in I've exposed you again
It's obvious that your a young earth creationist because the same tired nonsense that has been answered thousands of times somi will attempt to educate you yet again , the word theory has a different meaning when used in science than when used in casual conversation ( shocking i know ) , Evolution is a FACT in terms of what is plainly observable .
It's pretty easy to comprehend which means you and your creationist friends are either pretty stupid or dishonest , possibly both .
No there are not hundreds and millions of young earth creationists.
Even if there were they have zero evidence for any claims made regarding creation have they ?
Because Evolution is FACT
Don't need evidence because Evolution is FACT how many times do I have to say this ?
The links you supplied are indeed for the looney fringe come on Idea and answers in genisis ..... seriously :) ?
Your pal had no evidence why do you keep saying this ?
Again you're wrong you posted a link to two sites not taken seriously by most rational people and it's like saying that a holocaust denial could also be a useful resource .
Funnily enough you dismissed my source which has all the information and indeed cross references to all your pals childish statements and tellingly neither one of you's think it worth a visit whys that ?
Also Ken Ham from answers in genisis has had his ten questions regarding evolution answered at this stage ad nauseum but the idiot keeps asking them , that's why I think you're dishonest and sadly typical of creationists .
You pal claimed god did it and yet doesn't have to back that claim up but yet you stupidly want me to explain what is FACT without even attempting to read from the source I supplied , at least have the courtesy to do so as I've read the bible and several times and also .....On the origin of the species ... I suspect you've read neither
Again you bleat on and on with the same nonsense Evolution is fact get over it :)
Yes an argument is an argument the flat earthers have them too and holocaust deniers , it's normally only people such as you give them any validity thus attempting to legitimise nonsense .
So the first site you got to was answers in genisis and then an intelligent design site , so why would you post nonsense from these ridiculous sources ?
Why would you use this tripe as evidence ?
You're totally dishonest and your obnoxious lying is getting tedious you have not even the courage to admit you're a young earth creationist , why are believers so insecure and disengenous ?
Yes I will certainly refrain from communicating with you unless you attempt to rectify your dishonesty as you've proved conclusively you're merely Trolling with the aid of your silent partner .
The person I'm engaging with is a young earth creationist who is not remotely interested in studying the subject as he pointed me towards his source of inspiration which is two' intelligent ' design sites
Yes , all good sources my friend but I think young earth creationists just want to vent their frustration on anyone who disagrees with their pseudoscientific nonsense
The problem with these individuals is that they want to pick over every minute detail of evolution and their questions have been asked and answered thousands of times , the answers are mostly ignored and asked again and again ad nauseam, it's a game I've played before and it always ends the same way utter frustration at the idiocy of these nuts . Evolution is fact and has mountains of supporting evidence it's only the truly dense or religious nuts who continue to deny it .
Yes of course the majority must be morons for accepting what is FACT :) and the ' wise ' ones are the ones who believe in pusedoscience .... thanks for clearing that up :)
"But the OP said he ' debunked ' evolution so I'm still waiting on his counter theory ."
As stated previously (and apparently ignored), failing to provide a replacement for an explanatory theory is no grounds for said theory's validity. In other words, not having a different explanation doesn't mean that the current one is correct.
"Who says ? Well Charles Darwin for one who often referred to the science of evolution"
Ah, so because Darwin said Evolution is scientific, it must be?
"Why not not try something novel like a google search and type in irrefutable evidence for evolution ?"
For the simple reason that this is a debate platform. In actual, physical debates, you are required to provide substantiation for your claims, not demand your opponents to do so for you. I fail to see how an online debate should differ in that regard. You're the one trying to prove your claim, not me, so why should I be obligated to find substantiation for it?
You are intelligent not to believe in something that has no beginning. Evolutionists have no clue how that first living cell came to be.
Their theory (while they treat it as fact) is laughble when you think of our complex DNA just randomly happening over the BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of years with no asteroid impacts making the entire process start over.
FromWithin, you are absolutely correct. Evolutionists can talk talk talk all about darwinism but when we ask them "How did life come to be?", they can't answer. Ken Ham asked this to Bill Nye and Nye can only talk about ties while Ken Ham gave over 100 points of how humans aren't animals. It's so ironic that Nye also admitted that Ken had some points and was right. But it's so impudent of Nye to backtrack and say "God doesn't exist". The Big Bang theory was made in 1927. God already existed way before that!
Here's a fine example of a stupid question....first, implying something that is not God is God, because if God is not eternally self existent He cannot be God, so the thing called God in question is not God but rather is a straw man which came from a stupid question, a stupid question designed to make the brilliant statement that a thing which is not God cannot be God.
I quit believing in evolution when I was around seven years old. I believed in it for a little while, then realized that people in society were trying to shove it down my throat to make me think anything we do for survival is justified, and nothing really matters except that might makes right to determine what or who is in the evolutionary line. It takes a lot more faith to believe life emerged out of non-living matter and intelligence/consciousness comes from mindless matter than to believe the Living God who knows all created life and gave it awareness and intelligence. The only thing that could logically explain the reality of our being is that God created us, I knew that, and for fifteen years set out to find the truth, exploring the old classic philosophers and various religions...eliminating them one by one when I found holes in their logic and beliefs. Hinduism is very deceptive due to the reality of experiences common to so many of it's practitioners, occult is also deceptive due to manipulative abilities of evil spirits. I had heard of Jesus rising in victory over death and liked the idea that somebody had beaten death so maybe I could beat it, but not until my young 20's did I finally realized I was a sinner separated from God by my sin and He made the way for me to be reconciled with Him by giving His life's blood to cover my sin and I received Jesus Christ the Living God as my Savior and was born of His Spirit to be like Him completely when I see Him face to face.
Of course the idea of God being the creator means He is supreme and we are subject to His will and people who do not want God telling them what is right or wrong cannot accept His dominion over Creation so they come up with scientific impossibilities such as life and intelligence emerging from non-living and mindless matter then they pretend to have evidence that the nonsense they believe in really happened and is continuing to happen. Dermit and other idiots who can't speak but with mouths full of dirt in reply to common sense simple logic, I won't be reading your foul mouth filth and wondering if you have all your teeth or you are still spitting them out.
Oh, looks like the Darwin idolizing guy is still with us and not burning in Hell. That's good, there's still time so maybe he can realize God loves Him and come into agreement with God regarding his twisted heart which is unworthy of life and find God's mercy through faith in the blood of His Son which covers the sin of all who believe He is the Living God who died for their sins and rose in victory over sin, death, and Hell and will judge the living and the dead. Too bad you're still a dead man walking, but maybe you'll wake up and get saved before it't too late and you wake up in Hell having sealed your dying in preference of your pride.
Thank you for this opportunity to publish the gospel again.
"Bonfire, with the prefix "bon" meaning "good", would not seem good if you are in the fire, so how can Hell be a bonfire? Is God good for confining sinners in Hell so they wont' make any more trouble for those who are not in Hell?
So from God's viewpoint, Hell would be a bonfire but for those who are serving their time as sinners there, would it be a bad fire?
If you insist on using the generally agreed upon origin of the word being from "bonefire", fine. The question remains unchanged regardless. Is Hell a good fire? Is it good to know the bones of the wicked will smolder like coals in the bonfire of Hell as the wicked forever are dying in Hell?
You joined a month ago and posted three debates. One about homosexuality being a mental disorder, which has lots of arguments under it but only one short reply by "Hearty" despite many from the conservative religious regulars. And this debate. And one other about why Christianity is the only true religion. Pardon me but I think there is good reason to doubt you are a newcomer. You're just an alter identity of a regular. Which also suggests your claim you just recently came to reject evolution is a false witness account. You were never a believer in evolution.
Your statement strikes me as a incomplete phrase, mate. Shouldn't it read, I just bumped me noggin playing football and lost me senses and became daft,CEO I no luck never believe evolution?
Me old flatmate back in Birmingham once fell down the lift shaft about two floors and knackered his head but good. He became a believer in God after being an atheist and a right bright university instructor. Now he can barely tie his football boots but he is a good little Christian.with all the evidence for evolution there's no reason other than being daft or deluded for not believing in it. But I'm guessing you never believed in it and are just another Christian member here taking a piss by another name.
Yes! I completely agree with you! It is not be evolution that humans appeared on earth, it is by Jesus who made us. Read the start of Genesis as it speaks about God making us in his image. He made us out of the dust of the earth
Humans are great apes therefore every human has been born of an ape. A distant ancestor of humans was the lungfish. Correct, fish don't lay monkeys and they never have.
"Lungfish provides insight to life on land: 'Humans are just modified fish"
You are invalidated in your arguments once more. You cannot win. Humans are not apes. But you, "sciencerules"? You are the most low IQ human on the planet. You've lost. Now cry me a river and get over it.
Yep that's true and in scientific research, DNA has already proven that it is indeed impossible within humans. DNA alone is already enough evidence to prove that there was no macro evolution, especially the theory that Darwin developed. The ICR has spoken of this twice. It's actually "naturalist evolutionary science" aka pseudoscientists overall aka not real factual science nor proven science led by misguided people who claim they are experts but Bill Nye isn't a real science guy. He was a paid actor. He decided to defend the aspect of the "gender spectrum" instead of keeping to the biological facts of there only being two genders and how chromosomes determine one's gender at birth. Gender and sex are the same. Again, it's all pseudoscience that is enforcing the subjective opinions over actual facts to "please the snowflake dystopia". There is a difference between macro and micro evolution. Macro is aligned with the neanderthral common ancestor with humankind which is flawed and was never proven. Micro evolution, however, is how God helped Adam develop his intelligence to name every animal created and eventually his beloved wife, Eve.
Exactly. I made the same point. Apes would be humans today if evolution were true too! But no. I've been to the Hawaiian Honolulu Zoo. I've seen the monkeys there. They are quite a party but they are not us and we are not them. We certainly can mimic their "oo oo ah ah" noise though as we can mimic every other animal such as dogs, cats etc. But that doesn't make us animals. God created us to oversee all the creatures of the land, the water and the skies. That's why hunting season occurs! It's man over animal not animal over man. But yeah, right now, it's going backwards. That's hardly what I'd call progress.
Humans are great apes. Evolution is slow. The first humanoids were about four million years ago. If you want proof of similar species look up mosquitos in the subway. Enough time went by for the mosquitoes in the subway to become a different species than the mosquitoes outside the subway.
Fuck me that is one hell of a temper tantrum. Haha. Poor Sad Act. You're the one ranting and raving about me making a pervy video for a 6 year old birthday 3 years ago but being unable to say in what way it was pervy but yet..
It is ME that needs to shut the fuck up? Aww Sad Act you let your emotions get the better of you.
Did he seriously just ask someone to show him child pornography?
I agree, the theory of (macro) evolution is unscientific and complete garbage. The proof lies in the beginning: the law of biogenesis, which demands that life can only come from life. Until they can prove otherwise, this theory will always lack scientific credentials and is nothing more than an atheistic tool to deny God.
(Evidently Salathiel died childless and Pedaiah, his brother, married his widow according to Deut. 25,5,6)
wife m. PEDAIAH
(Quite legally according to the Mosaic law, Pedaiah's name does not appear as the father of Zerubbabel in either Matthew or Luke.)
(3) ZERUBBABEL (57)
(1 Chr. 3:19)
daughter
SHELOMITH --> m RHESA (58)
(4) ABIUD
JOANNA (59)
(5) ELIAKIM
JUDA (60)
JOSEPH (61)
(6) AZOR
SEMEI (62)
MATTATHIAS (63)
(7) SADOC
MAATH (64)
(8) ACHIM
NAGGE (65)
ESLI (66)
NAHUM (67)
(9) ELIUD
AMOS (68)
MATTATHIAS (69)
(10) ELEAZER
JOSEPH (70)
JANNA (71)
(11) MATTHAN
MELCHI (72)
LEVI (73)
MATTHAT (74)
(12) JACOB
HELI (75)
(13) JOSEPH m. MARY (76)
The only time people had 3 fingers and it suddenly reduced in number was with those under the sharia law after they had been found guilty of theft And they still gave birth to children with five fingers. Is that the evolution they are talking about?
Genesis 2:2 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
THE WORK IS FINISHED.
We are photocopies of each other.
You don't photocopy a mattress and you get a mat.
Those morons with their proud heads try to give explanations to everything.
And because they bring us technology we believe them. Looking at them like gods of some high knowledge.
Most of these scientists are atheist.
Isaac newton believed in God and he thought atheism is the most stupid thing ever. He wrote three times more about the bible(God) than science.
But these moronic scientists who feed on the book knowledge of such a great scientist are the ones who are atheists developing stupid theories.
Its normal though
Adolf hitler~ stupid followers.
Sadam Hussein~stupid followers
Bin laden~ stupid followers..
Evolution theoris is pure atheism trying to justify its stupidity.
There is an inventor in Africa~Ghana.
He never had tertiary education.http://africarm.org/list-of-some-inventions-of-apostle-dr-kwadwo-safo-1493/
His inventions are exceptional. He is naturally a genius. He does not take advantage of his influence to make up stupid theories about evolution.
Albert einstein was not atheist and believed in God. Most of the geniuses believed in God. Its just these recent atheist scientists trying to justify their stupidy...
Aristotle was a moron. Who was taught by socrates how to think.
He was overwelmed and it turned to madness or lemme say foolishness that, he tries to explain everything scientifically. While albert says our thinking is limited and we can never understand certain things. He says its like a little kid in a big library full of books of different languages...
(Evidently Salathiel died childless and Pedaiah, his brother, married his widow according to Deut. 25,5,6)
wife m. PEDAIAH
(Quite legally according to the Mosaic law, Pedaiah's name does not appear as the father of Zerubbabel in either Matthew or Luke.)
(3) ZERUBBABEL (57)
(1 Chr. 3:19)
daughter
SHELOMITH --> m RHESA (58)
(4) ABIUD
JOANNA (59)
(5) ELIAKIM
JUDA (60)
JOSEPH (61)
(6) AZOR
SEMEI (62)
MATTATHIAS (63)
(7) SADOC
MAATH (64)
(8) ACHIM
NAGGE (65)
ESLI (66)
NAHUM (67)
(9) ELIUD
AMOS (68)
MATTATHIAS (69)
(10) ELEAZER
JOSEPH (70)
JANNA (71)
(11) MATTHAN
MELCHI (72)
LEVI (73)
MATTHAT (74)
(12) JACOB
HELI (75)
(13) JOSEPH m. MARY (76)
The only time people had 3 fingers and it suddenly reduced in number was with those under the sharia law after they had been found guilty of theft And they still gave birth to children with five fingers. Is that the evolution they are talking about?
Genesis 2:2 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
THE WORK IS FINISHED.
We are photocopies of each other.
You don't photocopy a mattress and you get a mat.
Those morons with their proud heads try to give explanations to everything.
And because they bring us technology we believe them. Looking at them like gods of some high knowledge.
Most of these scientists are atheist.
Isaac newton believed in God and he thought atheism is the most stupid thing ever. He wrote three times more about the bible(God) than science.
But these moronic scientists who feed on the book knowledge of such a great scientist are the ones who are atheists developing stupid theories.
Its normal though
Adolf hitler~ stupid followers.
Sadam Hussein~stupid followers
Bin laden~ stupid followers..
Evolution theoris is pure atheism trying to justify its stupidity.
There is an inventor in Africa~Ghana.
He never had tertiary education.http://africarm.org/list-of-some-inventions-of-apostle-dr-kwadwo-safo-1493/
His inventions are exceptional. He is naturally a genius. He does not take advantage of his influence to make up stupid theories about evolution.
Albert einstein was not atheist and believed in God. Most of the geniuses believed in God. Its just these recent atheist scientists trying to justify their stupidy...
Aristotle was a moron. Who was taught by socrates how to think.
He was overwelmed and it turned to madness or lemme say foolishness that, he tries to explain everything scientifically. While albert says our thinking is limited and we can never understand certain things. He says its like a little kid in a big library full of books of different languages...
(Evidently Salathiel died childless and Pedaiah, his brother, married his widow according to Deut. 25,5,6)
wife m. PEDAIAH
(Quite legally according to the Mosaic law, Pedaiah's name does not appear as the father of Zerubbabel in either Matthew or Luke.)
(3) ZERUBBABEL (57)
(1 Chr. 3:19)
daughter
SHELOMITH --> m RHESA (58)
(4) ABIUD
JOANNA (59)
(5) ELIAKIM
JUDA (60)
JOSEPH (61)
(6) AZOR
SEMEI (62)
MATTATHIAS (63)
(7) SADOC
MAATH (64)
(8) ACHIM
NAGGE (65)
ESLI (66)
NAHUM (67)
(9) ELIUD
AMOS (68)
MATTATHIAS (69)
(10) ELEAZER
JOSEPH (70)
JANNA (71)
(11) MATTHAN
MELCHI (72)
LEVI (73)
MATTHAT (74)
(12) JACOB
HELI (75)
(13) JOSEPH m. MARY (76)
The only time people had 3 fingers and it suddenly reduced in number was with those under the sharia law after they had been found guilty of theft And they still gave birth to children with five fingers. Is that the evolution they are talking about?
Genesis 2:2 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
THE WORK IS FINISHED.
We are photocopies of each other.
You don't photocopy a mattress and you get a mat.
Those morons with their proud heads try to give explanations to everything.
And because they bring us technology we believe them. Looking at them like gods of some high knowledge.
Most of these scientists are atheist.
Isaac newton believed in God and he thought atheism is the most stupid thing ever. He wrote three times more about the bible(God) than science.
But these moronic scientists who feed on the book knowledge of such a great scientist are the ones who are atheists developing stupid theories.
Its normal though
Adolf hitler~ stupid followers.
Sadam Hussein~stupid followers
Bin laden~ stupid followers..
Evolution theoris is pure atheism trying to justify its stupidity.
There is an inventor in Africa~Ghana.
He never had tertiary education.http://africarm.org/list-of-some-inventions-of-apostle-dr-kwadwo-safo-1493/
His inventions are exceptional. He is naturally a genius. He does not take advantage of his influence to make up stupid theories about evolution.
Albert einstein was not atheist and believed in God. Most of the geniuses believed in God. Its just these recent atheist scientists trying to justify their stupidy...
Aristotle was a moron. Who was taught by socrates how to think.
He was overwelmed and it turned to madness or lemme say foolishness that, he tries to explain everything scientifically. While albert says our thinking is limited and we can never understand certain things. He says its like a little kid in a big library full of books of different languages...
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
And i listed some number of generations that has come to pass without any record of evolution.
If i were your idiotic photocopy then what? Its means you cannot look at your idiotic self in the mirror. I can tell you have no mirrors in your house.
I seriously think you're smoking crack or else brain damaged as everything you say is gibberish ; then i remembered that in fairness you're a chimp and thus display the intellectual capabilities of such a beast so maybe you deserve an extra ration of mixed fruits for your Trojan efforts :)
Yes. Those "scientists" like "sciencerules" are known as pseudo scientists aka not actual geniuses nor scientists with facts and evidence. Darwin's theory of evolution remains unproven. That's why this debate is occurring. I believe the maker of this post is justified in no longer believing in it. He is intellectual unlike "sciencerules".
Maybe you should do some research then. Read a few books on evolution? Try reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. He destroys any argument against evolution.
I will next week. And i will jot some points(richard's jabs) down that i will surely have a reply to. I think he is preaching to morons and they believe him.
It's rather telling that a religious uneducated nut calls Dawkins thinking on this matter ' points ' and then foolishly calls said ' points ' jabs , just typical of religious nuts who cannot accept what is FACT as in Evolution .
Once again anyone who disagrees with your superstitious ignorance is branded a moron , and this coming from a guy who said his preacher predicted some young people may die in the world this year ..........
I think Richard can rest easy at the thought of your forthcoming ' points '
My what predicted what? Tell everyone where i said that so they can read it for themselves.
And Dawkins is a moron i repeat.
My disagreeing with evolution has nothing to do with it contradicting with religion. Infact there can be God and evolution at the same time in the sense that God design nature to be so. But i point straight at evolution theory regardless of religion to say its not so, its stupid as the heads that manufactured it and the heads that accommodated it. Evolution is not exactly denying the exiatence of God. I think its describing how nature came into being in contrast with religious teachings alone. It cannot cover or prove the existence or non existence of God.
And my argument base excludes religious teachings and evolution theory from the God factor.
I am only weighing the two teachings. And even though evolution is well organised and detailed as compared to religious teachings of how nature came about, i still recognise some flaws in evolution making it unacceptable to me.
Even i have problems with the religious teachings also. But its simple truth beats your so called sophisticated well organised and detailed facts.
I am only analysing. And i just don't take no bullshit.
I compare it to the physical truth around me in my own environment. And its just not compatible with my personal experiences regardless of the God existence or not arguments.
There are scientists who still disagree with evolution. Has dawkins a better brain than their? Are they uneducated scientists too?
Not like you've ever followed it while calling many big scientists morons.
So, yes, they're all idiots.
But, anyway, what are these "scientists" you speak of? Or, this time again, you saw some random word in sentences you can't hope to understand, and began screaming like the chimp you are?
A lot and a lot of scientists modern day and past days disagree with evolution i don't have to time mention names just follow the links....and you will also find out why ....
Why do you resort to lying ? A lot of scientists really ? They're keeping very quiet about it and the websites you post up are creationist and young earth sites ( what a surprise ) .
You stupidly posted up a link to Quora of a question asked by a member which was .... why are there biologists who don't agree with Evolution ?
Why did you not tell everyone what the members of quora thought ?
Everyone who answered agreed Evolution is fact .
I'm a member of quora it's level of debate is of a very good level you would not last 10 minutes there you would end up getting a lifetime ban .
Ah. Do you know why i posted those links in the first place?
And why do you focus only on one link? Anyway does it say there are scientists who do not believe in evolution ? Yes it did right? Thats just what i wanted to prove......not how an argument ended...
You say i cannot read and write. If i didn't write how are you replying me? If i couldn't read why am i replying you?....Moron do you think before type
You posted the links because you're a ' special ' type of stupid :) I actually correctly pointed out the flaws in all the links , and no it's posts the names of some religious crackpots claiming to be scientists , also why are you lying about Quora ?
Also more lies where did I say you cannot read and write You liar ?
I said you were a dumb brute and that is without question as every reply you post makes my case
If only it were as fine to use as reddit, where you have easy choice in what to subscribe and related things.
But those introversion and related topics in quora are like stuffing a shotgun in your mouth and firing it. (Even though I have answers on them)
Along all the other things that make it annoying (browsing subreddits is better than browsing topics.) Well, I probably won't be using it anytime soon.
You are incredibly stupid. You can't even identify the answer you asked for, yourself. You wanted to know if there were or is any real scientists who disagree with evoulution isn't it? Thats is where the answer to your question ends. If it is true there are scientists who do not believe in evolution. Someone on Quora brought up that topic. That is a first step to the answer. Meaning am not the only one who is aware there are scientists who do not believe in evolution; ok. Whatever argument was made on quora has nothing to with your answer. Then there was also a link which vividly mentions the name of a physician who disagrees. Its an answer. Any arguments following it does not include in the answer.
Furthermore a link that says:
Past Scientists
There is no question that some of the most famous scientists of all times believed in creation. Ann Lamont has written a book entitled 21 Great Scientists Who Believed The Bible. She devotes chapters to Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun. These men weren’t dummies, and they believed in creation.
Evolutionists, of course, will argue that these great scientists lived before Darwin, and weren’t acquainted with the theory of evolution or modern scientific discoveries. While that may be true of some, it certainly isn’t true of Werner von Braun (1912 - 1977). Furthermore, their argument is based on the false premise that the evidence for the theory of evolution is stronger today than it was in the sixteenth through twentieth centuries. In reality, it was easier to believe in the theory of evolution when the fossil record was much less complete, before spontaneous generation of life was disproved, before genetics and molecular biology were understood as well as they are today.
Present Scientists
There are thousands of modern scientists who reject evolution. There is a partial list of them at http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html. But evolutionists apparently believe that any modern scientist who rejects evolution has merely been brainwashed by Christian doctrine. For example, consider this email we received from “P”.
Did you see that? There are thousands of modern scientists who reject evolution. There is even a book on it. That is where your answer ends. Your answer has nothing to do with the arguments there.
Any time i post a link, you do not even know what you are supposed to look for over there. I wonder why i waste my time on you.
No ,we have established you're the idiot as you now continue to demonstrate .
Whatever answer was given on quora also dismissed your claims as rubbish , so your point is after all you stupidly thought quora was defending you .
So again because some scientists believe in god so what ? what's your point ? Evolution is accepted as fact no matter how many idiots attempt to say it's not .
Oh dear what a shock a link to a Christian young earth creationist site how predictable that you idiots like you align yourself with these fruit cakes ,
Oddly enough not one of these 1000's of scientists who reject evolution have written any papers , books or peer reviewed articles with their findings , why do you think that is you Ghanaians ape ?
Your dumb head still don't get it ....as expected...who cares what side the argument favours. The only thing i derive from it is the answer which is there are scientists who donot believe in evolution and nothing more.Can't this just penetrate your blockhead already?.....
You say those scientists wrote nothing on it or you actually searched and didn't find?
My oh my you are upset ape face aren't you ? Why not post a list of your thousands ( your claim ) of reputable scientists who say evolution is false ? Bet you cannot do so liar .
Yes , I said your scientists wrote nothing in it that's peer reviewed , go on then you said there are over 1,000 and you cannot give even one name ?
Ah so Dawkins is a moron because you say so and this from an uneducated Ghanaian ... ok got ya
What you're saying is just your usual brand of indecipherable nonsense , yes there are people that disagree with evolution and Dawkins but the overwhelming majority agree with the case for Evolution ; like it or not Evolution is fact .
Some people believe the earth is flat and some believe in angels , virgin births , a zombie messiah , Noah's ark , a talking serpent and of course they also are ' authorities ' on Evolution ..... ooookay
Is this really all you have against it? Well, of course creatures are genetically related to each other as we are all animals but why are we all animals? What you stated doesn't prove anything, I have no idea how to even take that. In the fossil record we do have intermediate species and they are lined up through dating methods just happening to correlate with the times we would expect. You wanna throw away the fossil record evidence? Find me one documented case where an animals bones were found and it dated to a time in which we wouldn't expect to find it. Things tend to become complex when they have billions of years to evolve. All the things you list can be found through the simple click of a Google search. Really, you can Google how eyesight developed, hearing, etc. You seem to be hinting at the whole "how can such a complex eye develop? Surely you can't have one fourth of an eye? or half of an eye?" And this is based on a misunderstanding of how evolution works. There is no divine evolutionary plan that states "we want a complex eye so we will start from here". Something may start with one use and develop a completely different use over time. For the eye for example, from what I remember, it started out with mutation allowing the organism to sense light (a developed eyespot) which was very valuable.
