The biogeographic evidence for evolution

tas8831 · Nov 14, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
The "worst murders" include genocide. Kindly post evidence here that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler et al weren't Social Darwinists and that Social Darwinism has "nothing to do with Darwin".

Please prove that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler et al were not Newtonian Gravitists.

BilliardsBall · Nov 14, 2019

Polymath257 said:
WHAT???

I am in *no* way excusing the Holocaust. I am in *no* way denying the Holocaust. It was a horrible time for our species and many people. My ex wife's father had to hide in a coal cellar during that time and his aunt was killed in Auschwitz.

What I *am* denying is that Darwin had anything at all to do with this. It was the work of nasty, insane, authoritarians who blamed those they disagreed with for all their problems. it wasn't because of evolution that this atrocity happened. In fact, the perpetrators *denied* the scientific theory of evolution.

THAT ISN'T DARWINISM.

The Nazis denied the scientific theory of evolution?!

Robertson opened his pamphlet of excerpts from Mein Kampf with a section on “The Iron Law of Nature: Selection.” He began this section with the commentary:

The racial thought of Herr Hitler begins with a popularized conception of Darwin’s evolutionary hypotheses, which are turned to surprising uses.

Mein Kampf:

The pre-requisite for improvement of the species lies not in the union of the superior and the inferior, but in the complete victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not mix with the weaker, and thereby sacrifice its own greatness. Only the born weakling can feel this to be cruel. He is indeed but a weak and limited creature. If this law did not prevail, any higher evolution of all organic life would be unthinkable. (p. 8)

Because everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must admit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have manifested it for the first time. (p. 249)

But little as Nature wishes a mating of weaker with stronger individuals, still less does she want the fusion of a higher with a lower race, since otherwise the whole labor of selective evolution, perhaps through thousands of years, would be set at naught. (p. 279)

Always struggle is a means to improve the health and stamina of the species, and thus a cause of its evolution.
By any other process all development and evolution would cease, and the very reverse would take place. (p. 278)

The stronger must rule; it must not unite with the weaker, thus sacrificing its own stature. Only the born weakling can think this cruel, and that is why he is a weak and defective man; for if this law did not hold, any conceivable evolution of organic living things would be unthinkable. (p. 278)

And you marvel that Christians find atheists in denial of many concepts?!

BilliardsBall · Nov 14, 2019

gnostic said:
@BilliardsBall

No one is defending Hitler, his Holocaust, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, or any other dictators, BilliardsBall.

You have been twisting everyone’s words.

And you are bloody off-topic with m

Evolution has nothing to do with these political regimes, because what you are talking about involved politics and wars. There are nothing in evolution that talk of wars or politics or genocides or racism.

Have you even read Darwin’s On Origin, Descent Of Man, or his 1830s travel journal? None of them involved politics or wars, BilliardsBall.

Beside all this, Darwin has never any of his works, “Darwinism” or “Darwinian”. He always referred to as “Evolution” or “Natural Selection”.

Just because someone else applied his name “Darwin” into “Social Darwinism” in some social-political philosophy or ideology, doesn’t mean Darwin was in any way its author.

Did Darwin tell human experiments on Jews, tortured people or tell Germans to build gas chambers and exterminate Jews or Romany people?

Anti-Semitism in predated world war 2, predated Charles Darwin who wasn’t even German.

If you were a Jew at all, you would know this. You only seemed to focused on Hitler and Nazi Germany. If you want to talk of anti-Semitism, tried the Renaissance’s German Protestant preacher, Martin Luther. Have you forgotten about Luther?

But hatred for Jews, even predated Luther, and existed in many Western European cities during the Middle Ages, which included German states or the Holy Roman Empire, but also in France, Spain, and to lesser extent, in England (because there weren’t a large population of Jews in medieval England). which started segregation of Jews, forcing Jews to live in separate quarters of city, forced to wear clothes to distinguish them from other subjects, forced them to convert, or to torture them, damaged their homes and properties.

During the medieval Europe, Jews weren’t allowed to work in particular trades or professions, so what they did work for living that Christians didn’t want to do, they became quite wealthy. Their Christian neighbors became jealous or envious of Jews, so would accuse them of either heresy or witchcraft. Their arrests would have their wealth and properties confiscated, and they would be tortured and executed simply because their Christian neighbors were jealous of Jews becoming wealthy than them.

All this anti-Semitism in medieval and Renaissance Europe, definitely predated 19th century Charles Darwin, and yet you chose to ignore this parts of history, centuries before Darwin ever written On Origin.

Let's face it, if you were really a Jew, you would know all this, long history of hatred for Jews, and I shouldn’t have to tell you any of this.

Do you think Darwin was also responsible for anti-Semitism centuries before his time?

At this point, I hope the mods will step in as you are accusing me above, angrily, of being some kind of fake Jew. I will not tolerate your antisemitism, please desist.

BilliardsBall · Nov 14, 2019

tas8831 said:
Yes, we've been through your sad desperation before.

Do I really have to quote your claim AGAIN to remind you what YOU wrote?

I guess so...

TX Lt. Gov. Blames El Paso Shooting on Not Letting Kids “Pray in Our Schools”

"Hitler and Stalin did what they did as Darwinists. "

You made that claim (and obviously still believe it) despite the fact that you also linked to a paper supposedly supporting that lie, yet it demonstrated that such a position is based on malicious ignorance and dishonesty.

Remember?

I do:

Hitler and Darwin: http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Was Hitler a Darwinian.pdf and
From Darwin to Hitler Quotes by Richard Weikart

Which was a really dumb thing to do, such is your "scholarship":

***************************************************************************************************************************
I categorically reject anything by Weikart due to many instances of his shoddy scholarship:

"Weikart is best known for his 2004 book From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany.[24][25] The Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement, funded the book's research.[26] The academic community has been widely critical of the book.[4][13] Regarding the thesis of Weikart's book, University of Chicago historian Robert Richards wrote that Hitler was not a Darwinian and criticized Weikart for trying to undermine evolution.[27] Richards said that there was no evidence that Hitler read Darwin, and that some influencers of Nazism such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain were opposed to evolution.[27]"

But I do thank you for linking the Roberts article, for it would appear that you did not read it, for it concludes, any emphases mine:

"Countless conservative religious and political tracts have attempted to undermine Darwinian evolutionary theory by arguing that it had been endorsed by Hitler Darwinian evolutionary theory by arguing that it had been endorsed by Hitler and led to the biological ideas responsible for the crimes of the Nazis. These dogmatically driven accounts have been abetted by more reputable scholars who have written books with titles like From Darwin to Hitler [was that not written by your hero, Weikart the righty propagandist?] . Ernst Haeckel, Darwin’s great German disciple, is presumed to have virtually packed his sidecar with Darwinian theory and monistic philosophy and delivered their toxic message directly to Berchtesgaden or at least,individuals like Daniel Gasman, Stephen Jay Gould, and Larry Arnhardt have so argued. Many more scholars are ready to apply the casual, but nonetheless, telling sobriquet to Hitler of "social Darwinian.” In this essay I have maintained these assumptions simply cannot be sustained after a careful examination of the evidence.

To be considered a Darwinian at least three propositions would have to be endorsed: that the human races exhibit a hierarchy of more advanced and less advanced peoples; that the transmutation of species has occurred over long stretches of time and that human beings have descended from ape -like ancestors; and that natural selection — as Darwin understood it — is the principle means by which
transmutation occurs. Hitler and the Nazi biologists I have considered certainly claimed a hierarchy of races, but that idea far antedated the publication of Darwin’s theory and was hardly unique to it. There is no evidence linking Hitler’s presumption of such a hierarchy and Darwin’s conception hierarchy and Darwin’s conception. Moreover, Hitler explicitly denied the descent of
species, utterly rejecting the idea that Aryan man descended from ape - like predecessors. And most of the Nazi scientists I have cited likewise opposed that aspect of Darwin’s theory. Hitler did speak of the “struggle for existence,” but likely derived that language from his friend and supporter Houston Stewart Chamberlain, an avowed anti-Darwinian. Moreover, by Hitler’s own testimony, his anti-Semitism had political, not scientific or biological roots; there is no evidence that he had any special feeling for these scientific questions. And in any case, remote and abstract scientific conceptions can hardly provide the motivation for extreme political acts and desperate measures.

Among Nazi biologists, at least those publishing in an official organ of the Party, Mendelian genetics and de Vriesian mutation theory were favored, both vying at the beginning of the twentieth century to replace Darwinian theory. Moreover, the perceived mechanistic character of Darwinism stood in opposition to the more vitalistic conceptions of Nazi biologists and that of Hitler — or at least vitalism accords with the
drift of his thought about race. Finally, though his own religious views remain uncertain, Hitler often enough claimed religious justification for racial attitudes, assuming thereby the kind of theism usually pitted against Darwinian theory.

If “Social Darwinian” is a concept with definite meaning, it would have to refer to individuals who apply evolutionary theory to human beings in social settings. There is little difficulty, then, in denominating Herbert Spencer or Ernst Haeckel a social Darwinian. With that understanding, Darwin himself also would have to be so called.
But how could one possibly ascribe that term to Hitler, who rejected evolutionary theory? Only in the very loosest sense, when the phrase has no relationship to the theory of Charles Darwin, might it be used for Hitler.

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.

Yet, as I suggested at the beginning of this essay, there is an obvious sense in which my own claims must be moot. Even if Hitler could recite the Origin of Species by heart and referred to Darwin as his scientific hero, that would not have the slightest bearing on the validity of Darwinian theory or the moral standing of its author.

The only reasonable answer to the question that gives this essay its title is a very loud and unequivocal No!

So, yes, I accept your own reference as proof that Hitler was not a Darwinian or follower of Darwin, and thank you for enlightening me on yet another act of desperation and dishonesty undertaken by MANY creationist and right-wing extremist religionists in their sad, pathetic efforts to employ fallacious and dishonest methods to try to prop up their own failing ideology.

Thank you again @BilliardsBall for making so clear an admission. Very brave of you to have undermined and dare I say, debunked one of your own mantras.

***************************************************************************************************************************

Your game is well known, not very clever, and a sure sign of sad desperation to attack evolution any way that you can, seeing as how you failed, utterly, why trying to attack it using science.

How sad - do you use these same pathetic, snowflake antics in your "sermons"?

Robertson opened his pamphlet of excerpts from Mein Kampf with a section on “The Iron Law of Nature: Selection.” He began this section with the commentary:

The racial thought of Herr Hitler begins with a popularized conception of Darwin’s evolutionary hypotheses, which are turned to surprising uses.

Mein Kampf:

The pre-requisite for improvement of the species lies not in the union of the superior and the inferior, but in the complete victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not mix with the weaker, and thereby sacrifice its own greatness. Only the born weakling can feel this to be cruel. He is indeed but a weak and limited creature. If this law did not prevail, any higher evolution of all organic life would be unthinkable. (p. 8)

Because everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must admit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have manifested it for the first time. (p. 249)

But little as Nature wishes a mating of weaker with stronger individuals, still less does she want the fusion of a higher with a lower race, since otherwise the whole labor of selective evolution, perhaps through thousands of years, would be set at naught. (p. 279)

Always struggle is a means to improve the health and stamina of the species, and thus a cause of its evolution.
By any other process all development and evolution would cease, and the very reverse would take place. (p. 278)

The stronger must rule; it must not unite with the weaker, thus sacrificing its own stature. Only the born weakling can think this cruel, and that is why he is a weak and defective man; for if this law did not hold, any conceivable evolution of organic living things would be unthinkable. (p. 278)

You are being silly and rude, please stop!

Jose Fly · Nov 14, 2019

tas8831 said:
Please prove that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler et al were not Newtonian Gravitists.

@BilliardsBall is never going to give up this talking point, even though the more he tries to defend it the more desperate and childish it makes him look.

SkepticThinker · Nov 14, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
The Nazis denied the scientific theory of evolution?!

Robertson opened his pamphlet of excerpts from Mein Kampf with a section on “The Iron Law of Nature: Selection.” He began this section with the commentary:

The racial thought of Herr Hitler begins with a popularized conception of Darwin’s evolutionary hypotheses, which are turned to surprising uses.

Mein Kampf:

The pre-requisite for improvement of the species lies not in the union of the superior and the inferior, but in the complete victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not mix with the weaker, and thereby sacrifice its own greatness. Only the born weakling can feel this to be cruel. He is indeed but a weak and limited creature. If this law did not prevail, any higher evolution of all organic life would be unthinkable. (p. 8)

Because everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must admit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have manifested it for the first time. (p. 249)

But little as Nature wishes a mating of weaker with stronger individuals, still less does she want the fusion of a higher with a lower race, since otherwise the whole labor of selective evolution, perhaps through thousands of years, would be set at naught. (p. 279)

Always struggle is a means to improve the health and stamina of the species, and thus a cause of its evolution.
By any other process all development and evolution would cease, and the very reverse would take place. (p. 278)

The stronger must rule; it must not unite with the weaker, thus sacrificing its own stature. Only the born weakling can think this cruel, and that is why he is a weak and defective man; for if this law did not hold, any conceivable evolution of organic living things would be unthinkable. (p. 278)

And you marvel that Christians find atheists in denial of many concepts?!

You are making everyone's point for them. :facepalm:

SkepticThinker · Nov 14, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
At this point, I hope the mods will step in as you are accusing me above, angrily, of being some kind of fake Jew. I will not tolerate your antisemitism, please desist.

I wonder what they think about you twisting everyone's words in order to make it appear that they are defending Hitler and the Nazis.

Polymath257 · Nov 14, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
The Nazis denied the scientific theory of evolution?!

Robertson opened his pamphlet of excerpts from Mein Kampf with a section on “The Iron Law of Nature: Selection.” He began this section with the commentary:

The racial thought of Herr Hitler begins with a popularized conception of Darwin’s evolutionary hypotheses, which are turned to surprising uses.

Exactly *popularized conceptions*, which are *misunderstandings*. The popular conception is NOT the same as the scientific theory.

Nothing else needs to be said.

dad · Nov 14, 2019

gnostic said:
There is absolutely no connection between Evolution and any forms of political or social ideology, because evolution only concerned itself what can be passed through genes.

I suggest it is passed in the classroom. There is no evolution of life, that is a religion only with no basis in fact. All evolving we have observed is here in this modern world. The fossil record also has some evolving but science doesn't know what evolved and what was created...etc etc. So evolution (TOE..we are not talking about God's gift to us of being able to adapt and evolve) is nothing more than a belief set that is passed on like any other religion!

Social or political philosophies and racism are not built into your genes or your DNA, dad, and your children and descendants won’t naturally inherit your politics and social agenda through your DNA and genes.

Attitudes and beliefs are, of course passed on. When parents have a belief that we are mere animals and came from other animals rather than God, then they have engaged in descent of the species. They envision a bunch of animals running around, and basically..may the best man or woman survive...the fittest.

gnostic · Nov 14, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
At this point, I hope the mods will step in as you are accusing me above, angrily, of being some kind of fake Jew. I will not tolerate your antisemitism, please desist.

Well, it seemed that you are truly selectively blind to the fact that there have been history of Western European’s hatred for Jews, with mass forced expulsions, the segregation and violence against Jews by Christians, as well as mass forced conversions, since High Middle Ages.

Are you also forgetting German Reformation, where Martin Luther preached against the Jews.

You are using this stupid Social Darwinism, Nazi and communism because you think you can attack atheists here, by loosely associating atheism with these groups.

You have been trying to falsely accuse us of defending the Holocaust, Hitler and Mao.

Atheism have nothing to do with Nazi or communist China.

Sorry, but I am agnostic, not atheist, and I have never supported Hitler/Nazi or Mao, so basically you are using strawman and misinformation, to change the subject of this thread.

gnostic · Nov 14, 2019

dad said:
Attitudes and beliefs are, of course passed on. When parents have a belief that we are mere animals and came from other animals rather than God, then they have engaged in descent of the species. They envision a bunch of animals running around, and basically..may the best man or woman survive...the fittest.

Ok you are just a bigger fool as BilliardsBall.

Attitude and belief are taught, dad. They do not pass on through DNA or through inheritable genes.

Politics and social agenda are taught, not passed on genetically through biological inheritance.

There is no politics in evolution, dad.

Do you not realize how foolish both you and BilliardsBall sound?

DNA don’t carry that sort of sequences or genetic information, that can determine if a people are born to be naturally right-wing, left-wing, moderate, or being Republicans and Democrats. DNA also cannot carry information of theism, atheism, agnosticism, deism, or any other philosophical/social/political “-ism”.

Anyone who think DNA can carry such information, are bloody morons.

dad · Nov 14, 2019

gnostic said:
Ok you are just a bigger fool as BilliardsBall.

Attitude and belief are taught, dad. They do not pass on through DNA or through inheritable genes.

Now you're getting it. TOE is taught and not passed on through genes! Thanks for that.

There is no politics in evolution, dad.

When TOE is mandated by politicians to be taught, I guess it is in politics.

Remember..there IS no such information as TOE, it is a belief only and is passed on as such. It is no more passed through genetics than Santa is!

gnostic · Nov 14, 2019

dad said:
Now you're getting it. TOE is taught and not passed on through genes! Thanks for that.

A large part of the mechanism of evolution involved genetics, dad.

Are you now saying genetics are merely belief, not supported by the evidence?

Without the theory of evolution, genetics would be incomplete.

You still don't get it, dad, science offered explanation to the mechanism of any phenomena, and tested it via observation and evidence.

The evidences for evolution isn't just fossils, but also in DNA testings and in current application in medicine.

Evolution is part of our understanding of biology, and without it is incomplete.

Just as gravity would be incomplete if we only rely on Newton's theory on gravity, Einstein's General Relativity answer many questions that Newton couldn't even dream of answering. GR expand and extend gravity to much large bodies of masses. But even Einstein's contribution to theory of gravity, is incomplete. That's why scientists are working on quantum gravity, which is still theoretical at this stage.

Evolution isn't theoretical.

You really need to go back to school and learn basic biology, because you keep repeating same mistakes over and over again, which only make you look foolish.

dad · Nov 14, 2019

gnostic said:
A large part of the mechanism of evolution involved genetics, dad.

In this day and age and current nature, of course the reproductive cycle is a very very large part of how changes occur and are passed down. In Adam's day we do not know this to have also been the case. So, as long as you stick to talking about changes today, fine. Thus far and no further...you shall not pass.

Are you now saying genetics are merely belief, not supported by the evidence?

It exsts now a certain way. That is known. How the forces and laws that used to exist made genes function in the far past we do not know.

Without the theory of evolution, genetics would be incomplete.

Example?

You still don't get it, dad, science offered explanation to the mechanism of any phenomena, and tested it via observation and evidence.

Of course we get it. Science digs into it's little bag of fishbowl tricks to religiously use only mechanisms based on the nature of earth today to try and explain the future and past. Your religion is well known.

The evidences for evolution isn't just fossils, but also in DNA testings and in current application in medicine.

False. No medicine is based on genetics from Noah's day! Only today! NOTHING to do with where we came from/origins.

Evolution is part of our understanding of biology, and without it is incomplete.

We get it..joined at the hip. Many sciences are welded inexorably together and fused with your religion. They cannot be separated. That is why some don't so much know the difference between actual fact and knowledge and science, and origins sciences!

Evolution isn't theoretical.

When you try to apply/connect it to origins of life is is all belief and all theory and all religion. Nothing else.

I kid you not.

Bear Wild · Nov 14, 2019

dad said:
I suggest it is passed in the classroom. There is no evolution of life, that is a religion only with no basis in fact. All evolving we have observed is here in this modern world. The fossil record also has some evolving but science doesn't know what evolved and what was created...etc etc. So evolution (TOE..we are not talking about God's gift to us of being able to adapt and evolve) is nothing more than a belief set that is passed on like any other religion!

Attitudes and beliefs are, of course passed on. When parents have a belief that we are mere animals and came from other animals rather than God, then they have engaged in descent of the species. They envision a bunch of animals running around, and basically..may the best man or woman survive...the fittest.

At least you present information to show you have no understanding of evolution theory. Much has been learned from Darwin's time and so when you say survival of the fittest we are talking about a far more complex meaning in terms of a set of complex genetic patterns being able to be passed down successfully in offspring that survive. Thus when you imply the best man or woman you must take into account so many genetic variations that the word fittest must include beyond physical looks and physical strength such as social behaviors rooted in genetics, reproductive ability and risk for genetic combinations that could produce maladaptive patterns. When we present fittest as the genetic patterns that create the greatest success for offspring to then pass the genetics on, then we have the correct understanding of how "fitness" works in evolution. No gifts from a fictitious god needed.

As for you understanding of biology we see another of you areas of ignorance. You do not understand such fundamental concepts in biology as in the case that humans are animals. We reproduce, eat, eliminate, drink, and pass on our genetics with the same basic biology as other animals. There is absolutely no evidence to deny this basic reality only ignorance. Animals including humans animals come from animals is reality at its most basic.

Bear Wild · Nov 14, 2019

dad said:
In this day and age and current nature, of course the reproductive cycle is a very very large part of how changes occur and are passed down. In Adam's day we do not know this to have also been the case. So, as long as you stick to talking about changes today, fine. Thus far and no further...you shall not pass.

Here we see your imaginative self at work. Adam is a fictitious character and there is as much evidence for Adams existence as there is for Thor's existence. Well the existence of lightening in our world today may actually give better proof for Thor's existence than Adam of the bible, which makes Thor more real that Adam. To then use a fictional character in the bible and suggest that biology may have been different places a fictional character with fictional biological abilities. That is fantasy writing all over it. Not surprising with you.

Bear Wild · Nov 14, 2019

dad said:
False. No medicine is based on genetics from Noah's day! Only today! NOTHING to do with where we came from/origins.

Of course genetics wasn't present in Noah because Noah was another fictional character. If he was human he would have had the same basic genetics as all humans have. Since he is the creation in the neural networks of the mind and only present in the imaginary world the of course he had no genetics. As for all other real humans from the past, they all lived and reproduced with the same genetics as modern humans have. PLEASE do not mix your fantasy with the reality of life, It is an insult to life itself.

dad · Nov 14, 2019

Wild Fox said:
At least you present information to show you have no understanding of evolution theory. Much has been learned from Darwin's time and so when you say survival of the fittest we are talking about a far more complex meaning in terms of a set of complex genetic patterns being able to be passed down successfully in offspring that survive.

Yeah, the best passer downer wins? So instead of dog eat dog it is more like 'nice puppy eat dog'? How do genes get passed down that are most fit? Is that like 'She with the best low carb/vegan diet gets to pass down superior genes'? Or...?

Thus when you imply the best man or woman you must take into account so many genetic variations that the word fittest must include beyond physical looks and physical strength such as social behaviors rooted in genetics, reproductive ability and risk for genetic combinations that could produce maladaptive patterns.

Do we count out moms that tend to kill their babies as low reproductive ability?

When we present fittest as the genetic patterns that create the greatest success for offspring to then pass the genetics on, then we have the correct understanding of how "fitness" works in evolution. No gifts from a fictitious god needed.

Who gets to say what those 'best patterns that create genetic variations' are? Social behaviors!?

As for you understanding of biology we see another of you areas of ignorance. You do not understand such fundamental concepts in biology as in the case that humans are animals.

I understand your religion claims that and has attached itself like a leech to biology. I understand so called science has drawn a big circle in which it sticks man and beast and names them all 'animals'.

We reproduce, eat, eliminate, drink, and pass on our genetics with the same basic biology as other animals.

Far as manscience can see that is..which is not very far past the nose on their daft little face. What they cannot see is that only man was made in the image of God. They cannot see that God formed and created man and woman. They cannot see what genetics was even like in the early days of earth! They can see defication, eating, drinking, and various body parts and functions. Basically they are voicing the hellish doctrine of demons on mankind that we are just beasts and that there is no God! THAT is the source of TOE.

Animals including humans animals come from animals is reality at its most basic.

Of course creatures reproduce as God commanded. That does not mean we came from germs/bacteria/worms...or etc.

dad · Nov 14, 2019

Wild Fox said:
Of course genetics wasn't present in Noah because Noah was another fictional character. If he was human he would have had the same basic genetics as all humans have.

The flood likely happened in my current estimation around the time the KT layer was formed. So do show us usable DNA from that time and before???? What empty claims.

As for you declaring the record found in Scripture of people who lived as 'fictional' you made that up. Try to stick to something you have evidence for.

tas8831 · Nov 15, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
And you marvel that Christians find atheists in denial of many concepts?!

No - we marvel at your desperation to attack a scientific theory by any means necessary.

Like a cultist or something.

The biogeographic evidence for evolution

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Fisker of men

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Think & Care

Undefeated

The Lost One

The Lost One

Undefeated

The Lost One

Undefeated

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Undefeated

Undefeated

Well-Known Member