The creator did it.

[Subduction Zone]

They can't follow the scientific method otherwise there conclusion would be evolution is true. Much better to snow everyone with over simplifications, ridiculous statements, misquoted research and non sensical mathematical models. Overall when there is no evidence what else can you do but to create your own fictional evidence. Still love their website - evolutionsnews.org.- if that is not misleading and dishonest.

You know that, I know that. I think that even most creationists know that. When creationists demonstrate that they do not understand either the scientific method or scientific evidence I offer to go over those concepts with them. They seem to know that if they learned the basics of science that they could no longer "honestly" make their false claims. They won't lie on purpose but they will lie due to ignorance.

 

[Bear Wild]

You know that, I know that. I think that even most creationists know that. When creationists demonstrate that they do not understand either the scientific method or scientific evidence I offer to go over those concepts with them. They seem to know that if they learned the basics of science that they could no longer "honestly" make their false claims. They won't lie on purpose but they will lie due to ignorance.

That is why we have to stay vigilant for the next outrageous statement they make as they try desperately to convince themselves they are right. It is amazing how much the theory of evolution terrifies them so much to create such misleading statements.

 

[He has Risen!]

You know that, I know that. I think that even most creationists know that. When creationists demonstrate that they do not understand either the scientific method or scientific evidence I offer to go over those concepts with them. They seem to know that if they learned the basics of science that they could no longer "honestly" make their false claims. They won't lie on purpose but they will lie due to ignorance.

Explain to me what you believe I do not understand....please. All I read here is comments about how smart you are...show me what you know, and what I do not know. You cannot even decipher between differing points of understanding (beliefs about our existence) and not understanding. So tell me what you know that I do not. Take your time.

 

[He has Risen!]

That is why we have to stay vigilant for the next outrageous statement they make as they try desperately to convince themselves they are right. It is amazing how much the theory of evolution terrifies them so much to create such misleading statements.

I understand evolution very well, better than most. I do not agree with it because it is not true.

It does not terrify me. When I die I will go home to be with the Lord. But those like Stalin, Hitler, Mao and others have used evolution to terrify their country and the world at large. It is a most damaging theory to our human existence and our human rights.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Explain to me what you believe I do not understand....please. All I read here is comments about how smart you are...show me what you know, and what I do not know. You cannot even decipher between differing points of understanding (beliefs about our existence) and not understanding. So tell me what you know that I do not. Take your time.

Pretty much everything when it comes to the science of evolution. Perhaps you do not even understand the concept of evidence, or the scientific method.

Here are two simple questions for you:

Is there scientific evidence for the theory of evolution?

Is there scientific evidence for creationism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand evolution very well, better than most. I do not agree with it because it is not true.

It does not terrify me. When I die I will go home to be with the Lord. But those like Stalin, Hitler, Mao and others have used evolution to terrify their country and the world at large. It is a most damaging theory to our human existence and our human rights.

You may believe that is the case but your posts indicate otherwise. Stalin dumped evolution for Lysenkoism. Hitler, who was more of a Christian than any other religion, banned works on the theory in Germany. I do not know what Mao's beliefs were on evolution but at any rate they would have been immaterial since they did not affect his regime. I am sure that Mao accepted gravity as well. As did Hitler and Stalin. Is that a valid argument against gravity?

 

[ecco]

Life only comes from life is what real science observes-
Life from Life...or Not?

You use a term like "real science" and then link to "answersingenesis".

Do you believe the OT, which was written 6000 years ago, is really a good source for scientific knowledge? If so, how do you reconcile your flat-earth beliefs with pictures of the earth taken from the moon?

 

[ecco]

I understand evolution very well, better than most. I do not agree with it because it is not true.

You do not agree with it because no person can accept two diametrically opposed concepts. As a result of your religious indoctrination, you believe Genesis.

It does not terrify me.

It does not terrify you because there is no way that you could ever come to accept it. Denial is a lifesaver.

When I die I will go home to be with the Lord. But those like Stalin, Hitler, Mao and others have used evolution to terrify their country and the world at large. It is a most damaging theory to our human existence and our human rights.

For all of human history before Darwin and Evolution people have killed and tortured and raped each other. Many examples of this are in your very own bible. Perhaps you should read all of it, not just the "nice" parts.

 

[Rapture Era]

How much biology have you actually studied? How much biochemistry? if you did, you would realize just how *little* new information is required to go from fish to humans.

I have studied enough biology and biochemistry to understand and separate truth from fiction and fantasy. My son graduated last year cum-laude in biochemistry, so I also inquire with him on many issues.
But WOW! I cant believe you would make such a silly statement ("if you did, you would realize just how *little* new information is required to go from fish to humans")
You have absolutely no idea what would need to take place for just a fish type like say, a Barracuda to morph into a Bass! Let alone anything else. You need a heavy exercise in critical thinking cus obviously, you are waaaaay out in left field!
Think about this, you have a fish in water with it's female counterpart making little baby fishes of the same type. First of all, why would it need to change into anything else, its perfectly happy carrying on its life cycle doing the same thing over and over for millennia. What would be the next step and the next and the next for it to come out of the water? Remember, it was created for exactly what it does. Or, in your view, the fish came into being with all the necessary components and body structure to not only survive, but to procreate somehow by some means of monkey motion macro evolution which no one knows for sure how this is remotely possible, (except the creationists) So, what is your most intelligent thought process of the fish coming out of water on to land? Did it develop all the changes in water to survive on land so the when it poked its snout out of the water, it could now breath air? Every fish I've ever seen out of its living environment dies!
Hey! Maybe there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you! But before you are are considered, walk me through this critical thinking process of biology and biochemistry in which a fish is able to leave it's environment and have all of its aquatic shed for life out of water. Oh, and dont forget, he has to convince mom to come with him or and all of her bodily structure MUST change exactly when his does or no babies! What will they eat? How will they protect themselves from the elements? I'll even sport you trillions of years to get it done. So please, continue, I'm looking forward to your answer!

 

[He has Risen!]

I have studied enough biology and biochemistry to understand and separate truth from fiction and fantasy. My son graduated last year cum-laude in biochemistry, so I also inquire with him on many issues.
But WOW! I cant believe you would make such a silly statement ("if you did, you would realize just how *little* new information is required to go from fish to humans")
You have absolutely no idea what would need to take place for just a fish type like say, a Barracuda to morph into a Bass! Let alone anything else. You need a heavy exercise in critical thinking cus obviously, you are waaaaay out in left field!
Think about this, you have a fish in water with it's female counterpart making little baby fishes of the same type. First of all, why would it need to change into anything else, its perfectly happy carrying on its life cycle doing the same thing over and over for millennia. What would be the next step and the next and the next for it to come out of the water? Remember, it was created for exactly what it does. Or, in your view, the fish came into being with all the necessary components and body structure to not only survive, but to procreate somehow by some means of monkey motion macro evolution which no one knows for sure how this is remotely possible, (except the creationists) So, what is your most intelligent thought process of the fish coming out of water on to land? Did it develop all the changes in water to survive on land so the when it poked its snout out of the water, it could now breath air? Every fish I've ever seen out of its living environment dies!
Hey! Maybe there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you! But before you are are considered, walk me through this critical thinking process of biology and biochemistry in which a fish is able to leave it's environment and have all of its aquatic shed for life out of water. Oh, and dont forget, he has to convince mom to come with him or and all of her bodily structure MUST change exactly when his does or no babies! What will they eat? How will they protect themselves from the elements? I'll even sport you trillions of years to get it done. So please, continue, I'm looking forward to your answer!

Hey Rapture man,
This is an excellent example of them not critically thing about the position they are espousing. Because all of us share the same scientific evidence, but we greatly differ in our belief and understanding of the cause of life being so colplex.

 

[ecco]

...in which a fish is able to leave it's environment and have all of its aquatic shed for life out of water.

 

[ecco]

You have absolutely no idea what would need to take place for just a fish type like say, a Barracuda to morph into a Bass!

"MORPH"?

When you make comments like that, you make it painfully obvious that you have absolutely no understanding of evolution.

By the way, the spheroidal earth revolves around the sun. I know your book implies the earth is flat and the sun moves around it (except when it stops) but that's not true.

 

[ecco]

Because all of us share the same scientific evidence, but we greatly differ in our belief and understanding

What do you mean "all of us share the same scientific evidence"? Certainly, all scientific evidence is available. But that does not mean all of us read all of it. That would be impossible. It also does not mean that all of us can equally understand all of it. That would be ridiculous.

Neither you nor I have a Masters degree in Evolutionary Biology. We could understand little of the "scientific evidence" you talked about.

Likewise, neither of us has the training to determine the cause of a check engine light or the cause of a painful sore throat. When necessary we rely on experts in the field.

I believe in evolution because I rely on the knowledge and training of thousands of scientists that acknowledge that the cause of human existence is evolution.

Why do you disparage the findings of all these people? It cannot be because you have truly evaluated the evidence for yourself.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I understand evolution very well, better than most. I do not agree with it because it is not true.

Then you don't understand it. Evolution is an observable fact. The theory of evolution, like cell theory and the heliocentric theory, has far too much supporting evidence to ever be overturned. It can only be tweaked.

Even if the theory of evolution could somehow be upturned with the discovery of a falsifying find, the evidence that had led to that mistaken conclusion doesn't go away. It simply needs to be interpreted otherwise, which leaves only one possibility : the earth was made to appear as if evolution occurred, complete with stratified fossils showing a progression from forms less like modern forms to more modern one, the deeper ones being more primitive and dating to earlier times. Either naturalistic evolution occurred, or somebody went to a lot of trouble to deceive us into believing that it had.

Only evolution and the deceptive intelligent designer remain possible.Does that sound like the Christian god to you? We've gone past that possibility.

those like Stalin, Hitler, Mao and others have used evolution to terrify their country and the world at large

Evolution only terrifies people with contradictory faith-based beliefs.

It is a most damaging theory to our human existence and our human rights.

I'd call organized religion a greater threat to human rights. Human rights are a product of the Enlightenment and secular humanistic values, not the church, which never had much use for them in the Middle Ages and prior.

I have studied enough biology and biochemistry to understand and separate truth from fiction and fantasy. ... You have absolutely no idea what would need to take place for just a fish type like say, a Barracuda to morph into a Bass!

I think that you just defeated your first claim with your second comment. You proposed a fantasy that never occurred, two modern forms evolving from one to the other. Barracudas and bass don't become one another. They both descended from a more primitive last common ancestor, just like chimps and man.

Think about this, you have a fish in water with it's female counterpart making little baby fishes of the same type. First of all, why would it need to change into anything else, its perfectly happy carrying on its life cycle doing the same thing over and over for millennia.

This also belies your claim to understanding the science. Populations don't evolve because of need. They evolve because gene pools are not stable. Gene pools change because genetic variation over generations is a fact of biology - the reason that you, like the rest of the human race, are different from both of your parents.

monkey motion macro evolution which no one knows for sure how this is remotely possible, (except the creationists)

Evolutionary scientists and lay people sufficiently educated in the subject know exactly how evolution occurs, and why it is that nothing but extinction can prevent it from continuing. Gene pools cannot be stopped from introducing genetic sequences through a variety of mechanisms, nor can those gene pools avoid natural selection.

So, what is your most intelligent thought process of the fish coming out of water on to land? Did it develop all the changes in water to survive on land so the when it poked its snout out of the water, it could now breath air? Every fish I've ever seen out of its living environment dies!

Have you considered getting a proper education in biology? This isn't the way to do it. Your questions are addressed on Internet sites, in universities, and in textbooks and popular science books available. That's how most or all of the people you are questioning got their answers. There's no shortcut.

Because all of us share the same scientific evidence ...

We all have access to it, but some won't look at it, nor consider it impartially. Typically, the creationist has no use for scientific evidence, most emphatically that which contradicts his faith-based beliefs. Their interest in science seems to be limited to that which they think can be used to defend their contradictory religious beliefs.

all of us share the same scientific evidence, but we greatly differ in our belief and understanding of the cause of life being so complex.

We also differ in how we come to those beliefs, and the role that evidence and reason play in that process. The critical thinker begins with evidence and derives a conclusion from it. The faith based-thinker begins with a unsupported premise, sifts through the evidence finding whatever pieces he thinks that he can use to argue against the scientific position while ignoring the rest, then retrofits an argument that appears to lead to his premise as if it were a conclusion, just like the intelligent design movement.

It didn't identify an irreducibly complex biological system (evidence) and conclude that there must be a god, since natural selection could not do that incrementally. It began with the god belief and then went looking for irreducible complexity, which is pseudoscience. Not surprisingly, they saw what they wanted to see several times, even though it was never there one of those times.

Medical science goes to great lengths to exclude such bias when its trials are double-blinded, preventing both patients and the clinicians examining and evaluating them from knowing who got the therapy under study and who got the placebo. People famously see what they want to see or expect to see.

 

[gnostic]

I understand evolution very well, better than most. I do not agree with it because it is not true.

No, you don’t understand Evolution at all.

I not being childish by disagreeing with you. No, it is a fact that you don’t understand Evolution because of your next paragraph when you bring up dictators into debate.

It does not terrify me. When I die I will go home to be with the Lord. But those like Stalin, Hitler, Mao and others have used evolution to terrify their country and the world at large. It is a most damaging theory to our human existence and our human rights.

Evolution is purely biology.

It has nothing to do with atheism vs theism, nothing to with politics, laws, civilization, culture or any social issues. Evolution also has nothing to do with any politician and their political ambition. And it certainly has nothing to do with human rights.

Evolution also has nothing to do with racism.

Seriously, do you think your genes, your chromosomes, your dna/rna can love or hate, to make government policies or make wars? Do you not know how absurd sound?

No, He has Risen. You don’t understand biology at all, let alone Evolution.

That you would mention any of this, only demonstrated your complete ignorance on evolution.

Evolution is all about adapting to the environment, and passing on genes to future generations that will assist with surviving as population that produce offspring with the necessary genes.

When biologists talk of extinction, they are not talking about killing and committing genocide for military, political or social reasons.

Extinction in evolutionary biology means the changing environment is too great, that the species are not producing offspring with the necessary genes that help them survive, causing the population dropped so dramatically, that it would eventually lead to extinction.

Evolution occurred at gene-level, whether the population changes, the species will survive and thrive, or go extinct because they cannot adapt to the changing environment. Either ways, evolution don’t involve with knives, guns, bombs, nerve gases, or any accidental death, like car crashes.

Evolution is not about killing, murder or genocide. I find creationists’ argument, like yours, when they bring up Mao, Stalin and Hitler to be weak and false argument, because they have nothing to do with politics or with wars or with religions vs atheism.

 

[joelr]

Thank you ecco for proving my point,
take care,
Jesus both loves you and everyone else on this thread enough to die for.

Then why does one version of the myth have Jesus say"...why have you forsaken me? on the cross?

And if knew you were a demigod and that right after you died you simply went to heaven how is that a sacrifice at all? Heaven is supposed to be better than Earthly life?

Not to mention the idea of a god who requires magic blood sacrifice to get anything done should have been put to rest 10,000 years ago? In the bronze age people fell for it, it made sense to them. Now we know it's myth and there is no god who requires blood sacrifice. Or even a god who does things based on magic blood sacrifice.

 

[joelr]

I read your link.. They are talking about a 4,000 year old clay tablet.. There are thousands of them in Dilmun that tell the Ziusudra or Gilgamesh story.

Plus many other ark/flood stories from different cultures most pre-dating the OT

"Like other biblical tales, the myth of Noah is found in India, Egypt, Babylon, Sumer and other places. The fact is that there have been floods and deluge stories in many different parts of the world, including but not limited to the Middle East. In the Sumerian tale, which predated the biblical by thousands of years, the ark was built by Ziusudra; in Akkad, he was Atrakhasis, and in Babylon, Uta-Napisthim. The Greek Noah was called Deucalion, "who repopulated the earth after the waters subsided" and after the ark landed on Mt. Parnassos. The Armenian flood hero was called Xisuthros, "whose ark landed on Mt. Ararat." Noah's "history" can likewise be found in India, where there is a "tomb of Nuh" near the river Gagra in the district of Oude or Oudh, which may be related to Judea and Judah. The "ark-preserved" Indian Noah was also called "Menu.""


""Coincidentally," it was said that the Egyptian god Osiris was shut up in his ark on the very same day that Noah was likewise so disposed, as I relate in Suns of God (90):"

"
Also of interest in this quest are the words attributed to the Babylonian priest Berossus, who described the Flood, giving it a much older date:

The Babylonian Flood itself predates the biblical by about 33,000 years, which demonstrates that the two inundations do not reflect one "historical" flood"


"Moreover, the Noah tale can be found in Mexican mythology: The Mexican Noah is named Nata, while his wife is Nena. In the Indian mythology, in the reign of the "seventh Manu," Satyavrata, the "whole earth" is said to "have been destroyed by a flood, including all mankind, who had beome corrupt." The prince and seven rishis, along with their wives, survived by entering a "spacious vessel," "by command of Vishnu...accompanied by pairs of all animals."


Is Noah's Ark Real? | The Myth of Noah's Ark

 

[Rapture Era]

Hey Rapture man,
This is an excellent example of them not critically thing about the position they are espousing. Because all of us share the same scientific evidence, but we greatly differ in our belief and understanding of the cause of life being so colplex.

Exactly HhR! If you don't have a proper theology, nothing makes sense! This is where evolutionist have no choice but to

 

[sooda]

Plus many other ark/flood stories from different cultures most pre-dating the OT

"Like other biblical tales, the myth of Noah is found in India, Egypt, Babylon, Sumer and other places. The fact is that there have been floods and deluge stories in many different parts of the world, including but not limited to the Middle East.

In the Sumerian tale, which predated the biblical by thousands of years, the ark was built by Ziusudra; in Akkad, he was Atrakhasis, and in Babylon, Uta-Napisthim. The Greek Noah was called Deucalion, "who repopulated the earth after the waters subsided" and after the ark landed on Mt. Parnassos. The Armenian flood hero was called Xisuthros, "whose ark landed on Mt. Ararat." Noah's "history" can likewise be found in India, where there is a "tomb of Nuh" near the river Gagra in the district of Oude or Oudh, which may be related to Judea and Judah. The "ark-preserved" Indian Noah was also called "Menu.""


""Coincidentally," it was said that the Egyptian god Osiris was shut up in his ark on the very same day that Noah was likewise so disposed, as I relate in Suns of God (90):"

"
Also of interest in this quest are the words attributed to the Babylonian priest Berossus, who described the Flood, giving it a much older date:

The Babylonian Flood itself predates the biblical by about 33,000 years, which demonstrates that the two inundations do not reflect one "historical" flood"


"Moreover, the Noah tale can be found in Mexican mythology: The Mexican Noah is named Nata, while his wife is Nena. In the Indian mythology, in the reign of the "seventh Manu," Satyavrata, the "whole earth" is said to "have been destroyed by a flood, including all mankind, who had beome corrupt." The prince and seven rishis, along with their wives, survived by entering a "spacious vessel," "by command of Vishnu...accompanied by pairs of all animals."


Is Noah's Ark Real? | The Myth of Noah's Ark

Great website, however the Ziusudra tale from Babylon dates to 2900 BC.

Is Noah's Ark Real? | The Myth of Noah's Ark

It should be noted further that it was a custom, in Scotland for one, to create stone "ships" on mounts in emulation possibly of the sea-burial customs of royalty or of a mythical motif revolving around astrotheology, such that any number of these "arks" may be discovered on Earth.

Another problem with the biblical tradition is that Noah, the man who supposedly built this big boat, was some 600 years old at the time! (Gen 7:6) Nor do we find any logic in the all-powerful God of the universe asking a frail old man to construct such a thing when He could simply have snapped his fingers and, rather than flooding the entire earth, made all the bad people disappear. Instead, the Lord slaughters millions of innocent animals!

And then there's the nonsensical follow-up tale where Noah gets drunk and is seen naked by his son Ham, who rats him out to his brothers, an act that so infuriates the hungover patriarch that he curses Ham's son Canaan for all eternity (Gen 9:21-25), causing an enormous amount of racism and suffering based on a pernicision biblical fable.

Ancient flood and ark myths common

Rather than being a historical figure who was the progenitor of three races, Noah is a fictitious character found in the mythologies of a number of different cultures globally, as opposed to being limited to one area and its specific peoples. The Bible story represents a rehash of other myths, changed to revolve around these particular peoples.

Like other biblical tales, the myth of Noah is found in India, Egypt, Babylon, Sumer and other places. The fact is that there have been floods and deluge stories in many different parts of the world, including but not limited to the Middle East. In the Sumerian tale, which predated the biblical by thousands of years, the ark was built by Ziusudra; in Akkad, he was Atrakhasis, and in Babylon, Uta-Napisthim. The Greek Noah was called Deucalion, "who repopulated the earth after the waters subsided" and after the ark landed on Mt. Parnassos.

The Armenian flood hero was called Xisuthros, "whose ark landed on Mt. Ararat." Noah's "history" can likewise be found in India, where there is a "tomb of Nuh" near the river Gagra in the district of Oude or Oudh, which may be related to Judea and Judah. The "ark-preserved" Indian Noah was also called "Menu."

Like Noah, the Sumero-Armenian Ziusudra/Xisuthros had three sons, including one named "Japetosthes," essentially the same as Noah's son Japheth, also related to Pra-japati or Jvapeti, son of the Indian Menu, whose other sons possessed virtually the same names as those of Noah, i.e., Shem and Ham. As Oxford University Hebrew professor George Henry Bateson Wright says in Was Israel ever in Egypt? (51):

 

[Rapture Era]

Haaahaaa! That was predictable! Wonder whats in those "chick monk" cheeks?