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.
I assume you're referring to the Scientific Theory of Evolution, which states that, over vast periods of time, a species can alter itself into a dissimilar species. The only statement I have to make in this regard is that it requires the fundamental assumption that organisms' genetic codes are infinitely alterable, which is not the case. All forms of life in existence are simply variations of genetic codes, which are of a physical, and thus finite, nature.
There are, of course, many more discrepancies between this theory and reality, but I believe the above to be sufficient for my point.
If all the variation we see in species results from simple variations in genetic codes then evolution doesn't need to explain an infinitely alterable process. Evolution doesn't make that assumption. Your objection to evolution is a strawman.
While you present a great point (which addresses a fact I neglected to present in my previous post), I am unwilling to discuss this issue with you. If you would like to apologize for your childish, crass actions, and have a civil, rational discussion, I'd be glad to do so, but until that point, I have nothing further to say to you.
Ok I will bite , I was not going to get involved here after our last encounter when you hastily retreated and resorted to insult when I had the temerity to question you , so I will continue and state my concerns regarding the topic in question
Before we begin I suspect you're also on site in another persona if so you may re -enter the arena under your second name for another dose of the medicine about to be kindly administered 😉
1: Why do you ask a fellow debater to apologise , for what reason , is it because he dared correct your obvious ignorance on accepted facts ?
2: Why do you question what is accepted as FACT by the vast majority of peer reviewed , published and eminent scientists and scholars ?
3: Why do you expect people who support Evolution to know every minute deatai of the information regards the theory ?
4: Why do you not research like most and ask the relevant experts for clarification on Evolution ?
5: Why are you or any other creationists alternative theories never published and are all dismissed as nonsense ?
6: If there are peer reviewed and published papers in reputable publications please post the links in your reply so I may examine and evaluate their ' findings ' .
7: You are a theist this I know , how come the same scrutiny and logic is not applied to the concept of of a ghostly voice emanating from a whirlwind and ' allegedly ' passing on sage advice to a motley crew of ragged Bronze Age goatherds , the result being the bible ?
When you address these obvious concerns of mine we may continue , depending of course on how you reply and whether your replies are meaningful or void of implication
"when you hastily retreated and resorted to insult when I had the temerity to question you"
It would appear our perspectives on the matter differ quite drastically.
"Before we begin I suspect you're also on site in another persona if so you may re -enter the arena under your second name for another dose of the medicine about to be kindly administered 😉"
I hate to break it to you, but I have no alternate account on this website. Why should I? I have a single opinion on a given issue, so why would I go to the trouble of stating it redundantly?
"Why do you ask a fellow debater to apologise , for what reason is it because he dared question you ?"
To be quite frank, Cartman's questioning of my arguments, in of itself, is actually quite relieving. They have presented several thought provoking rebuttals to some of my arguments, which I would normally relish discussing. Unfortunately, they also, in several instances, presented "straw man" arguments by altering my stated claims to be nonsensical, and have used inappropriate tactics for a purpose I can only assume is attempting to provoke a reaction from me. For that reason, I have discontinued discourse with that individual. Their questioning me had no influence on that decision.
Why do you question what is accepted as FACT by the vast majority of peer reviewed , published and eminent scientists and scholars ?"
What, specifically, are you claiming to be accepted as "fact"? The Theory of Evolution? I've already pointed out (and you have yet to refute with anything other than "it is because it is") that a Scientific Theory is simply a conclusion drawn from the majority of evidence on a subject, and is thus incapable of being regarded as infallible truth.
" Why do you expect people who support Evolution to know every minute deatai of the information regards the theory ?"
I don't recall making this claim. To what statement of mine are you referring to?
"Why do you not research like most and ask the relevant experts for clarification on Evolution ?"
I'm not sure which "expert" you expect me to discuss the issue with, but I assure you I have performed at least a basic level of research. Said research should be evident in my previous posts.
Why are you or any other creationists alternative theories never published and are all dismissed as nonsense ?"
I can't speak for other Creationists, nor have I proposed an alternate theory to Evolution. I can, however, point to many Creationist scientists, such as Dr. Jim Allan, a geneticist, Dr. Steven Austin, a Ph.D in Geology, Dr. Raymond Bohlin, a Biologist, and many more (http://creation.com/creation-scientists, if you're interested). If anything relating to Creationism were rejected by the scientific community, why are so many scientists Creationists?
"If there are peer reviewed and published papers in reputable publications please post the links in your reply so I may examine and evaluate their ' findings ' ."
I'll quite simply answer by providing a link to this article: (http://creation.com/creationism-science-and-peer-review)
Feel free to read it at your leisure.
"You are a theist this I know , how come the same scrutiny and logic is not applied to the concept of of a ghostly voice emanating from a whirlwind and ' allegedly ' passing on sage advice to a motley crew of ragged Bronze Age goatherds , the result being the bible ?"
I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. What exactly are you referring to by "the same scrutiny and logic"? If you mean to imply that the Bible is not an accurate document because we don't apply the same measures to determine it to be so as the development of a Scientific Theory, I'd point out that the two areas of research are entirely exclusive, one being historical, the other being largely observational.
My apologies in advance if you find this post somewhat abrasive. It was not intended as such. I deeply hope we will be able to discuss this issue in a civil, rational manner in the future.
Yes indeed our perspectives on the matter are indeed different as you did indeed resort to insult , I called you on it and that was that.
Its just your posts are remarkably similar and in one case exactly the same comments were posted by you and another on the same thread .
Ok , I can only see what's presented here on this thread and I see no evidence of what you claim .
If you're going to get nasty and misrepresent what I said in our last exchange there will be consequences , is this the way you want to go ?
Yes the majority of evidence backed up the theory and regarding the terms ' theories ' and ' facts ' this may suffice .....
Similarly, biologist Richard Lenski says, "Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those 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.
So a couple of facts may help ....
1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
Further facts can be supplied that support the claims
I was asking for published papers as opposed to unpublished which would be merely speculative , and no but I seen your previous posts which included a ' proof of god ' which was to be frank nonsense .
Yes I know there are creationist scientists the world of real science is not interested in creationist nonsense .
Your links don't work and creationist nonsense is meaningless in this debate
The last point I made is rather obvious it's making the comparison that the inforamation contained in this book is the word of a spiritual entity and is not backed up for by any of what you seek here ..... Evidence
"Its just your posts are remarkably similar and in one case exactly the same comments were posted by you and another on the same thread ."
To which "remarkably similar" posts are you referring? I can think of a single instance where a post of mine was copy/pasted by another user, I assume because mine was banned for being in the wrong column.
"Ok , I can only see what's presented here on this thread and I see no evidence of what you claim ."
Aside from the links I provided?
"If you're going to get nasty and misrepresent what I said in our last exchange there will be consequences , is this the way you want to go ?"
To reiterate my previous statement on this matter, my post was intended to be descriptive, not pejorative. If you'd like, I could go through our previous discussion and point out, with quotes, exactly what I'm referring to.
"Yes the majority of evidence backed up the theory and regarding the terms ' theories ' and ' facts ' this may suffice ....."
Our knowledge base, given our finite nature, is incomplete, and can never be complete. It follows, therefore, that any theory we devise from our knowledge base can never be regarded as irrefutable fact, as, due to our limitations, we can't say for certain whether it agrees with all information. That's about as simply as I can put it.
"Similarly, biologist Richard Lenski says, "Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those 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."
This is, I believe, the logical fallacy of composition, which follows the form of "The X part of Y has the Z quality, therefore Y has the Z quality". An example of this would be claiming that, because sodium and chlorine are both toxic, it follows that table salt, or sodium chloride, must be toxic. Similarly, just because some observed facts may support Evolution doesn't mean that Evolution is factual in nature.
"1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended."
Or perhaps that the requirements of life are relatively specific? Evolution is not the only explanation for this phenomenon.
"2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another."
There are several reasons why this is not true: First of all, the fossil record is far from complete. Second, there is no single instance of a line of fossils demonstrating a clear change from one species to another, dissimilar species. Third, from what we've seen in the fossil record, "Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group." (-Integrated Principles of Zoology).
"3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged."
As #1.
"5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not."
If I understand your statement correctly, your argument is basically that natural selection is evidence of Evolution. Natural selection is a well documented phenomenon that provides absolutely no support to Evolution in of itself. All it proves is that organisms have some amount of genetic variability; to claim it to imply that said organisms have infinite genetic variability is an unfair extrapolation.
"but I seen your previous posts which included a ' proof of god ' which was to be frank nonsense ."
How so? Simply claiming it to be the case is unhelpful.
"the world of real science is not interested in creationist nonsense ."
That depends on what you consider the "real world" of science. If you begin by defining it to be Atheist, you'd certainly be correct. If you define it as an impartial review of all present evidence, clearly we'd disagree.
"Your links don't work and creationist nonsense is meaningless in this debate"
I assure you, the links do work. If your issue with them is that to follow them you'd have to copy/paste the URL into your browser, I must admit I'm disappointed.
Furthermore, why do you dismiss them so quickly just because they're written by Creationists? Is that not an admittance of unfair bias?
"The last point I made is rather obvious it's making the comparison that the inforamation contained in this book is the word of a spiritual entity and is not backed up for by any of what you seek here ..... Evidence"
Actually, as a historical document, there's quite a bit of archaeological evidence to support it. Theologically speaking, the amount of imperial evidence is not so vast (being that it involves that which is fundamentally incapable of observing by physical methods), but that has no bearing on its validity.
You ask which posts then you supply one post which dermonstrates your ' confusion ' and indeed your dishonesty .
This is further demonstrated by the poster on the same thread making the exact same claim as you which proves you or he is lying or as I suggested the same person , so clarification is necessary I think , do you agree ?
I told you the links are now ' conveniently ' inactive
That will not be necessary as you reduced our ' alleged ' conversation into one basic statement which you claimed was my only reply to your ' assertions
So again why are you lying ?
Yes that's about as simply as you can put it as you're a simpleton and cannot back up your nonsense and your inability to evaluate information verifies the veracity of my statement .
No it means that you who are an unpublished unrecognised ' genius ' has to resort to bullshit to back up your nonsense .
1: It is accepted as fact by' rational people
2: refer to one
3:refer to one
4 : refer to one
5: refer to one
You see here is YOUR problem you do not accept the mountains of evidence backing up Evolution and you percieve ' flaws ' in the theory and yet no one is listening to any of the creationist bullshit whys that do you think ?
Your god proof was a one on one , post it up online and I will destroy it in one maybe two comments , choice is yours of course
My statement was . ...The world of science is not interested in creationist nonsense ...
Yes it does depend on what I mean when I say the real world of science , is that not evident ?
Your use of the term atheist is applied incorrectly if you seek clarity i will give you a definition as you clearly do not know as evidenced by your misuse of the term .
I dismiss them because you assume ( incorrectly ) I have no knowledge of their position regarding what we are discussing , the
mistake theists make is they think atheists have not ' seen it all before ' I can quote the bible chapter and verse and have debated the best and will continue to do so .
Also you dishonestly claim I dismiss them , i do not if they are teaching real science as opposed to horseshit
The bible has no ' evidence ' of a god if it does present and we can evaluate it .
"You ask which posts then you supply one post which dermonstrates your ' confusion ' and indeed your dishonesty ."
So, you were referring to my hypothetical future statements?
"This is further demonstrated by the poster on the same thread making the exact same claim as you which proves you or he is lying or as I suggested the same person , so clarification is necessary I think , do you agree ?"
No other poster in this debate, from what I've seen, has made a post identical (or functionally so) to mine, nor have even made the same arguments. The closest I can see is agreeing with my general side, that is, that Evolution is fallacious. If that means I have multiple accounts, clearly there are only four or five people on this website, with dozens of accounts each.
"I told you the links are now ' conveniently ' inactive"
If you click on them, yes, they don't take you to the URL. As previously stated, if you take the time to copy/paste the links into the URL bar on your browser they'll quite happily take you to their respective articles. If your understanding of computers is not high enough to understand these instructions, you have no one to blame but yourself.
"That will not be necessary as you reduced our ' alleged ' conversation into one basic statement which you claimed was my only reply to your ' assertions"
I stated that you had, in our previous discussion, made a particular claim ("X is true because X is true") several times. I never once claimed that to be the only statement you ever made.
"So again why are you lying ?"
First of all, that's a loaded question. Second, what specifically are you referring to?
"Yes that's about as simply as you can put it as you're a simpleton and cannot back up your nonsense and your inability to evaluate information verifies the veracity of my statement ."
So much for civil discussion.
"No it means that you who are an unpublished unrecognised ' genius ' has to resort to bullshit to back up your nonsense ."
I'm not a scientist, nor do I claim to be a genius. The wonderful thing about logic is that you don't have to be particularly intelligent to use it.
Something in your statement I find noteworthy is that you appear to have fallen back into your pattern of stating "X is true because X is true". In this particular case, you claimed my formal proof of God's existence to be nonsense, and when asked for clarification, you simply reassert that it's nonsense. Redundantly stating claims is no basis for those claims.
"1: It is accepted as fact by' rational people"
How do you define "rational"? If that definition includes "Believes in Evolution", then you'd be correct. Otherwise, you are incorrect.
"You see here is YOUR problem you do not accept the mountains of evidence backing up Evolution"
What evidence? The closest thing you've provided thus far was an archive, which is no better than demanding I find your evidence for you.
"and you percieve ' flaws ' in the theory and yet no one is listening to any of the creationist bullshit whys that do you think ?"
To state the obvious, some people listen to "Creationist nonsense", given that Creationists still exist, so your question is absurd.
"Your god proof was a one on one , post it up online and I will destroy it in one maybe two comments , choice is yours of course"
I'd rather not, as it's quite long and posting it again would be redundant. I am quite curious as to what you'll say about it, however, so if you're truly incapable of following links (as your previous grievance suggests), I'd be glad to do so.
"Your use of the term atheist is applied incorrectly if you seek clarity i will give you a definition as you clearly do not know as evidenced by your misuse of the term ."
"Atheism" is defined as "lack of belief in God or gods". In what way did I misuse it?
"I dismiss them because you assume ( incorrectly ) I have no knowledge of their position regarding what we are discussing , the
mistake theists make is they think atheists have not ' seen it all before ' I can quote the bible chapter and verse and have debated the best and will continue to do so ."
Given that you don't quote the statement of mine you're refuting, I'm having some difficulty divining what you're referring to. I assume it to be your statement on the Bible? If so, I never once claimed you to be knowledgeable in regards to the Bible, and even if I did, I would certainly have more than that single rebuttal.
"The bible has no ' evidence ' of a god if it does present and we can evaluate it ."
To reiterate, the Bible is a historical document, not a textbook. The only objective way to determine its validity is through logical extrapolation: if its records follow along the lines of reality (specifically, in this instance, archaeological findings), then its other records must be true. There's quite a lot of evidence to support this, but I'll just leave a link to a particularly strong article: (http://www.equip.org/article/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/).
1: Again you seem to lack the mental ability to understand my original point which was .... your double post on a recent thread displaying your dishonesty and duplicity
2: refer to above
3: my understanding of computers is 'irrelevant as one does not need to know the exact workings of a computer to receive relevant data as opposed to fabricated ; pity your understanding was not 'high enough ' to realise this
4: You implied it through your malicious wording as you well know
5: It's not a loaded question because it's evidence based and can be verified by another poster on this thread who also levelled the same charge at you
5: It is civil on my part , also its making a claim by me which you cannot dispute as reader of our ' conversation ' would draw the same conclusions
6: You say ... The wonderful thing about logic is you don't have to be particularly clever to use it ....
If you feel that strongly about it maybe you should start using it as your far from 'particularly clever '
Regarding your god claim you resort to lying again and cowardice in misreprenting what I said , I told you to put your god proof up on CD and I would destroy it
7: Thank you for agreeing yes rational people believe in Evolution so ?
8: incorrect , and more lies I provided you with evidence you dispute that evidence which just makes you a bigger idiot than I first supposed , your claim that I wanted you to 'find evidence ' for me ... no I've read the evidence and accept it as fact you have not so that again is down to your lack of intelligence
9: no it's pointing out maybe you need to stop listening to horsehit
10: incorrect again , I followed links as your helper probably assisted you on his lap top , and you're correct it was 'long winded ' that's what you do isn't it ?
Post it up if you wish and I shall continue your education.
11: Really ? Read it slowly again and 'illumination ' may follow ..... you can do it
12: you're rambling , tell me this is this all you can do ?
Every time a fact is given to you your counter is that you don't accept it and that's it ?
13: indeed , not a textbook ? I think you need to google the definition of 'textbook ' i taught the bible was the word of God ?
Now it's a book mainly about history and archaeology thank you but I knew that .
If you wish we can talk about your misunderstanding of Evolution and work you through some basic steps that might help you to come to an understanding , or I can supply a list of recommended reading if you wish ?
Next time I shall supply some of your fellow creationists best arguments against evolution and destroy them one by one if you wish ?
As you have once again descended to the level of arguing with ad hominem attacks and circular reasoning, I'm afraid rational, civil discussion is impossible, therefore any further arguing will be meaningless.
Interesting , if you throw the first punch you get it back , you were dishonest from the off and your only counter argument was a link to a creationist site 👏👏👏
Circular reasoning indeed , this coming from a man who says Evolution is wrong because ..... he says so 👏👏👏👏🔥
Any further argument ?? I'm still waiting for one from you 🙀
Don't stress as I did a bit of reasesrch on your sources stating the case for your side ,and I willl leave your strongest here in print and let the readers decide , it's no wonder you didn't post it as it's bullshit but quiet funny .
When creationists are asked the fair and simple question as to why they are not published in scientific peer -reviewed journals here is reason they use , remember this is YOUR SOURCE 👇
👉 Creationism, Science and Peer Review 👈
Published: 2 February 2008 (GMT+10)
We have often received feedback in the form of questions on the lines of, ‘If creation is scientific, then why don’t you publish in peer-reviewed secular journals?’ Andrew Kulikovsky answers this common question in detail. He points out the advantage of peer review but then documents its many shortcomings in practice, including rejecting top research while admitting fraud, as well as an all-too-common role in protecting the ruling paradigm. So it is folly for anticreationists to hide behind it instead of dealing with the arguments. This is why, to keep the advantages and overcome its drawbacks, creationists have started their own journals, e.g. CMI’s longstanding publication now titled Journal of Creation.👈
There it is the best case for creationists and from the opening statement the usual nonsense is spouted and the use of the word secular is rather peculiar when scientific is the norm .
So there is ' an advantage ' in being published but creationists are not because.... supporters of Evolution reject 'top research ' by creationists, indulge in fraud ,and support the ' ruling paradigm '
Researchers actually look forward to reviewing and analysing top research , if you're acussing others of fraud why not back up the cowardly claims made ?
The sly way the words secular and now paradigm are used is typical , by the misuse of the term paradigm the poster is saying that supporters of Evolution are merely going along with a societal norm .
Predictably creationists have there own ' creationist journal ' which no doubt you keep to yourselves in case rational people resort to fraud by not accepting your 'top research '
The only case creationists have is to label those who accept Evolution as being dishonest and fraudsters and that's the same little dance you're doing as you're also dishonest ; Jesus would love you wouldn't he ?
Unfortunately, they also, in several instances, presented "straw man" arguments by altering my stated claims to be nonsensical,
This isn't true at all. You twist your own words. For example, you said something can't happen. I said it can, and you said that you never said it was impossible. I never said anything about it being impossible and you shut down the conversation song I twisted your words. The reason why your arguments sound nonsensical when I repeat them to you is because they really are nonsensical.
I'll keep it simple. Schools have courses which specialize in different topics. A science class can appropriately teach evolution because it's a theory derived through science. A world religions or history class can appropriately teach creative design since that's within their realm. It's folly to expect the science class to teach creative design, or the religions class to teach evolution.
In terms of which I believe, I'd say clearly the earth and the whole universe are far older than the time scale taught in the Bible, and the fossil records studied, even if not perfectly understood, would still suggest some sort of natural process has been going on than instead that an omnipotent being blinked everything into existence. Whether or not the beginning of time was a bang or a god I don't know, but really no one else does either.
And I'll close with I don't really mind if some of you prefer the god explanation instead. What I do mind about though is if you impede science somehow simply because it looks at something you thought the Bible already answered. History has famous examples, like Galileo, persecuted by religious believers just for daring to think and question.
Consider this. If every book dealing with science was destroyed, a few hundred years from now, the books would be back with exactly the same "facts".
If every Bible, Quran or religious scroll were destroyed I don't believe Christianity, Islam, Judaism would even exist. Likely some religion would but it would be some "god" we've never heard of.
Facts are provable ... beyond a reasonable doubt, "gods" are not.
Your snippet about religions adds nothing to the debate and is rather just hoping some religious person is offended and starts arguing religion with you. Could have easily said "I just believe in what is proven fact and any religion has not been proven fact" Instead you use "god" you list religions and add Beyond a reasonable doubt gods are not just like a stinger to really drag them in.
An interesting way to look at it. Not in any way correct to my way of thinking, but, I don't always explain myself to EVERYONES understanding. Thanks for your opinion ... as it is.
I didn't say anything above "was true". I said I didn't believe they would come back anything like they are now. They would have to make up other stories of their "origin", of what their entity "did", "said", "proclaimed, etc.. They would be different than they are now ... but just as fabricated.
The science, though, would HAVE to be very similar, if not exact.
I said: "Consider this." I don't really care whether YOU believe it or not, or even if you actually consider it. But, yes. I certainly believe it. You may consider it or not, I'm not arguing with you.
Before everyone screams "god made us in his image" and stuff let me explain one thing. Evolution is adaptation that takes place over generations. It's not monkey to man or fish to lizard it's simply adapting not in one generation but over generations. Now that that;s out of the way. There is a lot proof proof to suggest evolution, especially among the animal kingdom as a whole, is in fact true. The only proof stating otherwise, as far as i know, is the bible and other religious works. I'm not saying i Don't believe in god, which I do, but the proof in evolution is out there. There is evidence that we did in fact had smaller brains, that we did start evolving traits that we now have today. In fact the appendix, a useless organ to us now, was very important (at least it's speculated to as far as I know) back so many years ago.
From what I have read about the theory it seems that more and more scientist are conceding to the fact that there is not as much evidence for evolution as many people would be lead to believe. Also about the apendix, I'm not entirely sure but I think in recent years there has been a some speculation that the appendix does actually serve a purpose as a storage system for the helpful bacteria in out bodies in case an antibacterial medicine was to wipe them out
I get evolution, I understand the concept. But what makes the dna change? does it change by itself? if so how does it do so? How does it know when to evolve? And why have we seen no recent actions of evolution?. And if dna changes all the time why?
What is obtuse is your comment you did not answer my questions. natural selections answers both. however both cats and humans live outside of that so these things survive outside of the rules of natural selection.
Mutations change DNA. The sun cause mutations, errors by DNA copying proteins causes mutations, etc. Nothing knows when to evolve. That questions didn't make sense. The DNA change results in a trait change. If the trait is useful it will allow the organism to reproduce and get pissed along. We have seen recent acts of evolution. Lizards released into 2 different environments will change until they can't vetted together any more. That's evolution. The DNA changes all the time because there are outside influences.
Changes in DNA are made during the copy process. These copy errors result in mutations. These mutations result in an organism with greater or lesser ability to survive and procreate. Evolution of an organism is the increased survival rate resulting from a given mutation, then causing the population of that mutation to increase and eventually replace the less successful DNA mutations.
They're lying to you, it's brainwashing They may actually believe the lies they are trying to get you to buy into, but it's all lies nonetheless. People who are trying to make you believe in evolution are not your friends. .
I'll take evolution over "Your father is in the clouds above, and he loves you. He convinced a man to kill his son. He also killed all but eight of the human race (his "children"), in a flood because they refused to obey his every whim. Then is son came down and caused civil discourse, after which he came back from the dead. Praise the beautiful father and savior! Oh, and the jews, his faithful followers, suffered immensely at the hands of (I believe christians) the Nazis. Don't worry, it was necessary.Oh, and blacks suffering oppression (legal wise) until 1970 is a myth. Praise the master!"
I'd think the ones praising the mass murderer aren't my friends.
Fine. You take evolution and hope it keeps you away from God and it will. Your going to wake up in Hell if you will not believe God loves you and gave Himself for you when He died for your sins on the cross so you don't have to be dying forever in Hell as you are dying now in this world.
Take evolution and all it promises...death. You're a fool.
