Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Talking about yourself does not help.
You must be awfully unsure of yourself. You are afraid to learn.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Talking about yourself does not help.
You must be awfully unsure of yourself. You are afraid to learn.
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.
I mean get your beliefs off of the evidence.
Oh dad, you aren't that bad.
Two points on that strawman argument.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.
What nonsense.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.
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!And I do: from the physical evidence, which is reliable, as opposed to the written texts, which are not.
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.
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!
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
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!
Good luck with that. You won't be ruling anything, except maybe the worms that devour your rotting corpse.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.
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.YES, Hitler and Stalin both spoke of man's struggle for survival, fittest against weakest, more Spencer than Darwin, but there you have it.
LOL!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?
As much as you think your relatives will best me, I have it on the highest authority thatGood luck with that. You won;t be ruling anything, except the worms that devour your rotting corpse.
Bye!
Yeah, whatever - say, I was reading through some old threads, and I noticed that you never did address these questions: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?
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.
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...
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...
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."
Call spirits what you like. Call em tomatoes if you want.
I see, "Social DARWINISM" has "NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTIONARY THEORY".
What is your explanation for the etymology of the term?
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.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."
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).
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.Please, please, PLEASE setup a debate in public and/or attend my sermons/teachings so people can see the contrast between us as people.
Isn't it cute when they pretend to understand the things they are programmed to argue against?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....
What is your explanation for the etymology of the term "ammonia"?I see, "Social DARWINISM" has "NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTIONARY THEORY".
What is your explanation for the etymology of the term?