• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The biogeographic evidence for evolution

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
71eVYqXuNTL._SX466_.jpg

Talking about yourself does not help.

You must be awfully unsure of yourself. You are afraid to learn.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, they are...now.

False. If it was THIS nature that changed that may be true. If it was another unknown nature that changed that is false.

No, because if things were different, then the information *in transit* would show the information as it was in the past. Sort of like you book manages to carry information into the future only because of the regularity of physical laws.

It's like your nonsense of there not being time in outer space. If there was not, then light could not travel to us. But it does. Furthermore, it shows how things were when the light was emitted, not how they are now. That is information about the past.

I mean get your beliefs off of the evidence.

And I do: from the physical evidence, which is reliable, as opposed to the written texts, which are not.
 

dad

Undefeated
No, because if things were different, then the information *in transit* would show the information as it was in the past. Sort of like you book manages to carry information into the future only because of the regularity of physical laws.
Two points on that strawman argument.

1) The issue of laws is only relevant on earth, and our past here, it is not an issue in deep space.


2) Since all things and all light from anywhere is only seen here, we don't know that it accurately reflects laws out there.


It's like your nonsense of there not being time in outer space. If there was not, then light could not travel to us. But it does.
What nonsense.
Of course light would still move the only problem is that we would not know how much time was involved in that movement. All we know is how much time is involved HERE after it GETS here!

Furthermore, it shows how things were when the light was emitted, not how they are now. That is information about the past.

How much in the past..present..or future we could not know since time would not exist there as here! Ha.

Nor do we know how time may affect laws. etc


And I do: from the physical evidence, which is reliable, as opposed to the written texts, which are not.
The physical evidences such as ratios of isotopes that exist are not evidence of how nature was in the past. They are evidence of how it is now!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Two points on that strawman argument.

1) The issue of laws is only relevant on earth, and our past here, it is not an issue in deep space.

You need to support this claim with evidence. We do have evidence to the contrary. This is not sound reasoning on your part.

2) Since all things and all light from anywhere is only seen here, we don't know that it accurately reflects laws out there.

Again, we have evidence to the contrary. What is your evidence for a change? If there is no evidence for a change then there is no valid reason to make your claim.

What nonsense.
Of course light would still move the only problem is that we would not know how much time was involved in that movement. All we know is how much time is involved HERE after it GETS here!

No, you made a nonsensical statement and were caught at it. Own up to our errors and move on.

How much in the past..present..or future we could not know since time would not exist there as here! Ha.

Again, if you cannot show valid evidence for this then we have to go with the observable evidence that tells us that you are wrong.

Nor do we know how time may affect laws. etc

What makes you think that? Again, please provide evidence for your claims.

The physical evidences such as ratios of isotopes that exist are not evidence of how nature was in the past. They are evidence of how it is now!

I see that you do not understand the nature of evidence. I can help you with that. All you have is hand waving and denial. And apparently a bit of cowardice. Otherwise why run away from offers of help?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
No. Mine is that we have an eternal destiny to rule and reign with Him forever. My view of the world is that He will come and fix it rather than greenies saving the planet.
Good luck with that. You won't be ruling anything, except maybe the worms that devour your rotting corpse.
Bye!
 
Last edited:

tas8831

Well-Known Member
YES, Hitler and Stalin both spoke of man's struggle for survival, fittest against weakest, more Spencer than Darwin, but there you have it.
All these years 'debating' this, all this time having your errors and misunderstandings explained to you, and you still do not seem to know what "survival of the fittest" actually means in evolution.

Whatever shall we conclude? How is it that you, with your many degrees, cannot correct the obvious, documented mistakes you've made? Do you do this out of malice? Desperation? Is it really so important to you to attack evolution that you will, in essence, lie, repeatedly, about what it means and how it (didn't) affects bad people, destroying the hint of credibility you may have had once?

Can't wait until you claim that the Inquisitors were influenced by Darwin, somehow, as well...
If Hitler was doing the Lord's work when he murdered Jews and born again Christians, and had nuns and priests put in death camps, whose work are you doing when you assault me the way he did? Who is your Lord?
LOL!

"Assault" you? Oh, you poor, poor thing!

It is a good thing that one could never, ever find posts from you "assaulting" those that disprove your naive assertions and the like... Then, I suspect the folk you attack are not so self-righteous and thin-skinned as the typical right-wing Dunning-Kruger Effect zombie.

And just a reminder - even you can be mistakenly correct on occasion:


"In order to sustain the thesis that Hitler was a Darwinian one would have to ignore all the explicit statements of Hitler rejecting any theory like Darwin’s and draw fanciful implications from vague words, errant phrases, and ambiguous sentences,neglecting altogether more straight -forward, contextual interpretations of such utterances. Only the ideologically blinded would still try to sustain the thesis in the face of the contrary, manifest evidence."
- BilliardsBall said:
Hitler and Darwin: http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Was Hitler a Darwinian.pdf

I guess we know why folks like you and Weikart maintain the farce...
 

dad

Undefeated
Good luck with that. You won;t be ruling anything, except the worms that devour your rotting corpse.
Bye!
As much as you think your relatives will best me, I have it on the highest authority that

Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
YES, Hitler and Stalin both spoke of man's struggle for survival, fittest against weakest, more Spencer than Darwin, but there you have it.

If Hitler was doing the Lord's work when he murdered Jews and born again Christians, and had nuns and priests put in death camps, whose work are you doing when you assault me the way he did? Who is your Lord?
Yeah, whatever - say, I was reading through some old threads, and I noticed that you never did address these questions:

"No, but I'd like evolutionists to admit that natural selection can mostly affect macro changes, not DNA conjoining and DNA base information!"

1. WHAT is a 'macrochange'?
2. WHAT is "DNA conjoining"?
3. WHAT is "DNA base information"?​


You just sort of whined about people being meanies and ran off...
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Case in point: "social darwinism", is not evolution theory and has nothing to do with it.





So, just like I said: only people with vast ignorance on the subject of biology or who have socio-political agenda's will be saying such stupid things.

Funny how actually agree while claiming that I'm wrong.

I can only repeat myself:
The theoy of biological evolution only deals with the processes that all living things are subject to due to the mere condition of being alive. ALL living things. It speaks to our biological makeup and, you know... how biology works.

It is not a prescription for how to treat eachother nore for how to organize a society.
No matter how many times you repeat it or how many times you wish to be juvenile and invoke godwin to make your silly point.

It's not going to change the facts.

I see, "Social DARWINISM" has "NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTIONARY THEORY".

What is your explanation for the etymology of the term?

If I was an atheist, I'd post a "slap forehead" meme below, but since I'm a Christian, I'll say "Jesus loves you."
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
All these years 'debating' this, all this time having your errors and misunderstandings explained to you, and you still do not seem to know what "survival of the fittest" actually means in evolution.

Whatever shall we conclude? How is it that you, with your many degrees, cannot correct the obvious, documented mistakes you've made? Do you do this out of malice? Desperation? Is it really so important to you to attack evolution that you will, in essence, lie, repeatedly, about what it means and how it (didn't) affects bad people, destroying the hint of credibility you may have had once?

Can't wait until you claim that the Inquisitors were influenced by Darwin, somehow, as well...

LOL!

"Assault" you? Oh, you poor, poor thing!

It is a good thing that one could never, ever find posts from you "assaulting" those that disprove your naive assertions and the like... Then, I suspect the folk you attack are not so self-righteous and thin-skinned as the typical right-wing Dunning-Kruger Effect zombie.

And just a reminder - even you can be mistakenly correct on occasion:


"In order to sustain the thesis that Hitler was a Darwinian one would have to ignore all the explicit statements of Hitler rejecting any theory like Darwin’s and draw fanciful implications from vague words, errant phrases, and ambiguous sentences,neglecting altogether more straight -forward, contextual interpretations of such utterances. Only the ideologically blinded would still try to sustain the thesis in the face of the contrary, manifest evidence."
- BilliardsBall said:
Hitler and Darwin: http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Was Hitler a Darwinian.pdf

I guess we know why folks like you and Weikart maintain the farce...

Please, please, PLEASE setup a debate in public and/or attend my sermons/teachings so people can see the contrast between us as people.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Yeah, whatever - say, I was reading through some old threads, and I noticed that you never did address these questions:

"No, but I'd like evolutionists to admit that natural selection can mostly affect macro changes, not DNA conjoining and DNA base information!"

1. WHAT is a 'macrochange'?
2. WHAT is "DNA conjoining"?
3. WHAT is "DNA base information"?​


You just sort of whined about people being meanies and ran off...

Evolution helps provide incredible diversity on Earth. Evolution cannot change a being's "kind", every person, except a few die hards, realize cats do not give birth to anything but cats and dogs to dogs.

The overwhelming majority of DNA mutations aren't beneficial, but harmful or neutral. Genetic and epigenetic changes cannot account for biodiversity on Earth.

Put differently, I'm more than a tree (which has life but does not interact with us) or a dog (which has emotions, but not a spirit).
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I see, "Social DARWINISM" has "NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTIONARY THEORY".

What is your explanation for the etymology of the term?

If I was an atheist, I'd post a "slap forehead" meme below, but since I'm a Christian, I'll say "Jesus loves you."


I suspect you know that an idea can be taken, misunderstood, distorted, and then promoted under the original name. Christianity, for example, has had this happen multiple times.

Social Darwinism is such a case. It has nothing to do with *actual* Darwinian theory, but is a distorted, misunderstood, twisted set of ideas that was then *named* for the scientific theory.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I see, "Social DARWINISM" has "NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTIONARY THEORY".

Correct.
The theory of biological evolution deals with the biological and genetic makeup of organisms, with the processes that living beings are subject to, with the origins of diversity.

It has nothing to do with social structures, social relations, etc.

What is your explanation for the etymology of the term?

:rolleyes:

It doesn't matter. It's just a name.

Once more: the biological theory of evolution, is concerned with biology and biological diversity, not with social organisation.

If I was an atheist, I'd post a "slap forehead" meme below, but since I'm a Christian, I'll say "Jesus loves you."
And if you had some more basic knowledge and understanding concerning the natural sciences, you wouldn't feel the need to do either, since then we wouldn't need to have this conversation. Since then, you wouldn't make these ignorant claims.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Evolution helps provide incredible diversity on Earth. Evolution cannot change a being's "kind", every person, except a few die hards, realize cats do not give birth to anything but cats and dogs to dogs.

Evolution doesn't say that cats give birth to anything but cats. What are you talking about?
Sounds like your ignorance of evolution is showing its ugly face again.

The overwhelming majority of DNA mutations aren't beneficial, but harmful or neutral.

Actually, the majority are just neutral.
Evolution doesn't require "many" beneficial ones, nore does it posit that the majority is or should be beneficial.

So again, it seems you're arguing from ignorance.

Genetic and epigenetic changes cannot account for biodiversity on Earth.

Why not?
What is there in a DNA molecule that in your opinion can't be produced through gradual accumulation of mutation? And on what do you base that conclusion?


Put differently, I'm more than a tree (which has life but does not interact with us) or a dog (which has emotions, but not a spirit).

Well aren't we narcistic....
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Please, please, PLEASE setup a debate in public and/or attend my sermons/teachings so people can see the contrast between us as people.
That would be hilarious! I would point out some repetitive falsehood that you use that you think has merit, and you would whine and cry that I was "assaulting" you by pointing out your gullibility and/or ignorance. The people would laugh.

Then you would proclaim "Darwin made Hitler do what he did!" And I would pull out the time that you actually linked to an article that totally DEBUNKED that absurd mendacity - proving that you don't even read your own sources, thus demonstrating your shoddy research abilities, and you would do what? Pull a Hovind, and just hold up a bible and claim to have THE TRUTH!!!?

Then you might bring up the appendix, and I would ask you for evidence that the appendix receives nervous input to release special bacteria when needed, and you would be dumbstruck, and I would shrug my shoulders at the audience, and they would laugh and laugh at you!

And then you might try to sound all smart and sciency and say something like "No, but I'd like evolutionists to admit that natural selection can mostly affect macro changes, not DNA conjoining and DNA base information!"

And I would then ask:

1. WHAT is a 'macrochange'?
2. WHAT is "DNA conjoining"?
3. WHAT is "DNA base information"?

And you would have no answers, and I would again shrug at the audience, and they would laugh some more!

And then you might say "Well, at least in the bible, slavery was NOT OK!! It was only for people to pay off debts, and they even liked it!", and then I would pull out the bible verses totally demolishing that nonsense, and you would huff and puff and stamp your feet and turn to the laughing audience and claim "I am ignoring that guy from now on! I am right! RIGHT! RIGHTTTT!!!!"

Anyway -
These "sermons/teachings" - I do hope that you do not ever teach about science, or evolution, or how to look things up to support your claims, etc.?
 
Last edited:

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Evolution doesn't say that cats give birth to anything but cats. What are you talking about?
Sounds like your ignorance of evolution is showing its ugly face again.



Actually, the majority are just neutral.
Evolution doesn't require "many" beneficial ones, nore does it posit that the majority is or should be beneficial.

So again, it seems you're arguing from ignorance.



Why not?
What is there in a DNA molecule that in your opinion can't be produced through gradual accumulation of mutation? And on what do you base that conclusion?




Well aren't we narcistic....
Isn't it cute when they pretend to understand the things they are programmed to argue against?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
I see, "Social DARWINISM" has "NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTIONARY THEORY".

What is your explanation for the etymology of the term?
What is your explanation for the etymology of the term "ammonia"?

Do people that use ammonia really believe in Jupiter, the Roman deity????
 
Top