Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Something that is very obvious to me in all of these evolution vs god (creation) debates is that posters accepting that evolution is fact actually back up their posts with evidence, and argue the affirmative....On the other hand those taking the creation side think that instead of offering evidence for their side, believe that lame attempts at refuting evolution is a valid argument....I suppose the reason for this must be that creationism has no evidence, so that is all they can do.
As a poster said a couple of days ago.... Debating a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon, any move you make the pigeon just knocks the pieces over, poops on the table, declares himself the winner, then flies away.
Something that is very obvious to me in all of these evolution vs god (creation) debates is that posters accepting that evolution is fact actually back up their posts with evidence, and argue the affirmative....On the other hand those taking the creation side think that instead of offering evidence for their side, believe that lame attempts at refuting evolution is a valid argument....I suppose the reason for this must be that creationism has no evidence, so that is all they can do.
As a poster said a couple of days ago.... Debating a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon, any move you make the pigeon just knocks the pieces over, poops on the table, declares himself the winner, then flies away.
I've seen more blind faith placed in failed government promises than you'll see in a month of Sundays.
When I am willing to be honest??? You have to be joking, because I'm not the only one laughing at you...
Not only laughing at him.... but shaking my head in amazement about how some grown adults can be still be so ignorant and delusional in the 21st century... AND be seemingly proud of it.
Actually, that's not true with mainstream science AT ALL, particularly with regard to evolution. Darwin's theory is a 150+ year old concept that evolution science has been attempting to prove, including the fraudulent manufactering of evidence, such as "Luçy", and Piltdown man, both of which were not mistakes, but deliberate frauds.
The greatest fraud of all is the claim that evolution disproves creation or intelligent design, given that evolution has not identified the origin of life, but only describes changes to existing life. But in order for Darwinian evolution to take place, a self replicating cell must first exist before a mutation and natural sellection process is possible.
So, the question of how life came into existence remains a mystery, contrary to the false claims of evolutionists.
To me, engaging in the manufacturing of false evidence, and making unsubstantiated claims is far from "scientific".
Why do you continue trying to knock down silly strawmen? Why not try to have an informed discussion by actually informing yourself first about what evolution actually is?
As a poster said a couple of days ago.... Debating a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon, any move you make the pigeon just knocks the pieces over, poops on the table, declares himself the winner, then flies away.
And this is a very typical "argument" from the evolution camp. Turn the conversation away from the topic, and insult the posters instead.
a concrete theory for time needs to be presented in order to fully qualify evolution theory.
As it is science has no idea whether or not a master clock exists which would throw havoc into the Big Bang. Evolution is dependant on process time, time is its mechanism but the mechanism for time is unknown.
Evolution theory is a guess from an observable place in motion which is responcible for the relative idea. It may be only a fraction of reality relative to the whole enviorement which man experiences. Its import to teach the SM and what would be workable impressions which are uncovered because mans point of reference is all he has for the moment and he must exist survive and comprehend all these things as they all contribute to the species including the nurturing of reason.
So the creationist cannot justify removing the exploring nature of science and say well you cannot reproduce evolution or put it into a container like a bottle of pills so don't teach it, thats not right. Education can't come along and start picking and choosing from the products of rational exploring. The more science uncovers the more questions come along. There are more mysterys now then when the vikings roamed the earth with their general shaping of things. Its never good to be concrete about anything cause it can't be backed up and besides, we creatures need our freedom.
Last edited by alexcanter; 11-18-2013 at 06:34 AM..
Why do you continue trying to knock down silly strawmen? Why not try to have an informed discussion by actually informing yourself first about what evolution actually is?
Or you can keep on sounding like an argumentative fool who doesn't have a clue what he is arguing about.
Why don't you honestly address a point, rather than injecting mindless drivel?
The first false suggestion you try to pass off is that there is ONE definition of evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth, which explains why you'd promote such distortions. The truth is, evolutionists can't even agree on one concise definition. We have the foundational Darwinian theory which has been tweeked, altered, molded, updated, as evolution science itself has "evolved"
But to be clear AND honest (something that I would thank you to do for a change), I am referring to the most widely accepted premise for which most evolutionists agree, that being that modern evolutionists theory DOES NOT even attempt to explain the "origin of life". That this matter is a seperate issue ... "abiogenesis". Do you agree or disagree? It's a very simple question.
If you disagree, then do provide the evidence, or a link to the science which defines the origin of life in evolutionary terms. If however you do agree that evolution does not even attempt to address origin of life, then it can't claim to disprove "creation", because that is what creation addresses ... the origin of life.
This is so simple and basic, even you should have no problem understanding the point.
Both science and the bible's ideas come from MAN, Man wrote and ideas based on faith or science but are still mankinds failed attempts at putting the unknown into boxes.
2 Peter 1:21
For prophesy never had it's origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Scripture did not come from man, but men wrote as the Holy Spirit led them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, that is not evolution. Open your mind and go beyond your fairy tale book.
