The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

strobe

Blue AND red, you're in all kinds of trouble now buddy.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...Evolution was invented to support Atheism ... by the Ancient Greeks. The fact that a few 'liberal' Christians have also swallowed this unfounded Theory 'hook, line and sinker' doesn't in any way make it any more valid ...

PDN, Fanny, any-other-sane-christian-lurkers, I know you're here reading this, are you going to step in here yourselves ?

Almost ALL major churches in the world have no problem with evolution JC. YECs are a very minor insignificant minority of unimportant fundamentalists.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

... on the issue of making the facts fit the Theory here is what the great former Evolutionist Dr Colin Patterson had to say about it:-

I'm sure equally as valid as my quotes from JC in my signature and not taken out of context at all.

He is basically saying that any evolutionist, who accuses a Creationist of interpreting the facts according to his adopted worldview is like a kettle calling a pot black!!!!

Quote mining is wrong and the work of ignorant fools with nothing on their side.

... the problem for evolution is that there is NO evidence for it and NO logical basis for even proposing it, other than an overwhelming and desperate desire for Atheists to have something ... anything ... to give them some semblance of intellectual fulfillment/support for their worldview.

Rubbish, nonsense, trash.

You really are sounding so desperate these days. Instead of the usual 'Evolution is wrong because of <technical words mashed togeather taken from a random page of a mathematics book>' your just going with the old 'See no evil' approach.

If you don't acknowledge the mountains of scientific evidence, papers and scientists supporting Evolution it means its not true eh ? :pac::P:rolleyes::eek:

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...are you informing me of this??:D:)

... are your so deep in denial that words have lost all meaning for you??

... and you accuse me of having my head in the sand!!

Information is meaningless, genetically.

And you didn't address my point. Mutations can be beneficial, harmful or neutral. The vast majority are neutral. "Information" does not enter into question.

RepublicanEagle

The original topic of this thread has been hijacked by sceptics and critics who are very keen on ridiculing people who come along and challenge their views,I am not just referring to myself,but a lot of other members.It seems that the sceptics here would have nothing to discuss if people weren't offering material for them to scrutinise.There should be a mod monitoring this thread in the appropiate manner.Evolution is not the topic here nor is scientific theory,Darwinism,Atheism,Geology.What the hell are the mods here doing?

monosharp

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

The original topic of this thread has been hijacked by sceptics and critics who are very keen on ridiculing people who come along and challenge their views

When your views are based on nothing but the nonsensical rantings of fundamentally blinded fools who don't accept some of the best understood science human beings have because they want to interpret their religion in such a way that makes it completely contradictory to human understanding and basic common sense, then yes, yes your views should be ridiculed.

doctoremma

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

The original topic of this thread has been hijacked by sceptics and critics who are very keen on ridiculing people who come along and challenge their views

Most views are challenged fairly. For example, many have taken great trouble to explain exactly where JC's maths are wrong. It is only after several posts where you find yourself having to repeat biological/geological/astronomical data over and over again without any of it appearing to be taken for consideration that the responses may then become more personal.

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

I am not just referring to myself,but a lot of other members.It seems that the sceptics here would have nothing to discuss if people weren't offering material for them to scrutinise.?

And your problem with that is....

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

What the hell are the mods here doing?

I think it's called "non-intervention" - it should be a familiar concept....

Fanny Cradock

I came across this article on the Dawkins.net forum. Haven't had a chance to read it yet, but it sounds interesting.

Paleontology and Creationism Meet but Don’t Mesh

From what I gather it's an account about the day 70 palaeontologists decided to visit the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I came across this article on the Dawkins.net forum. Haven't had a chance to read it yet, but it sounds interesting.

Paleontology and Creationism Meet but Don’t Mesh

From what I gather it's an account about the day 70 palaeontologists decided to visit the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

Seen that before, absolutely hilarious.

Fanny, while your here would you mind addressing this post ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64472577&postcount=20973

doctoremma

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

You people are entitled to your beliefs but there are some contradictions to evolution,from what I can remember discussing with a friend of mine.
I raised the following points with him

Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

So, RepEagle, if you wish to get the thread back on track...

You posted this some time ago as a list of some of the contradictions you see in evolutionary theory. You have received responses pointing you in the direction of some information regarding each of these points. Did you have a look at any of the links? Do you have any response?

For example, do you still back your statement that there are no examples of transitional fossils? What do you think about some of the fossils that have been found and have been labelled as "transitional"? What would fit your criteria for a "transitional" fossil?

RepublicanEagle

doctoremma wrote: »

And your problem with that is...

There is a skeptics board on this for such "enlightened" people such as yourself,you all semm to be attracted to this thread (and have nothing to do but ridicule and make snide remarks)You are all like flies to a dung heap.The sceptics board is your dung heap.

doctoremma

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

There is skeptics board on this for such "enlightened" people that are attracted to this thread (who have nothing to do but ridicule and make snide remarks) like flies to a dung heap.The sceptics board is your dung heap.

Do you have any inclination to respond to my questions above?

If it will help, I will retract the remark about googling evolution.

RepublicanEagle

doctoremma wrote: »

So, RepEagle, if you wish to get the thread back on track...

You posted this some time ago as a list of some of the contradictions you see in evolutionary theory. You have received responses pointing you in the direction of some information regarding each of these points. Did you have a look at any of the links? Do you have any response?

For example, do you still back your statement that there are no examples of transitional fossils? What do you think about some of the fossils that have been found and have been labelled as "transitional"? What would fit your criteria for a "transitional" fossil?

As I said before, this thread has gone off topic.I have no wish to have discussions with people who exhibit superiority complexes and who have a habit of ridiculing members,there is no point to endure another torrent of snide remarks.

monosharp

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

There is skeptics board on this for such "enlightened" people such as yourself,you all semm to be attracted to this thread (and have nothing to do but ridicule and make snide remarks)You are all like flies to a dung heap.The sceptics board is your dung heap.

You see the funny thing about science is that generally the basic principles of it are not that hard to fathom, so while you may consider us enlightened, actual knowledge of Evolution and basic science is well within the grasp of almost all people.

Although I understand that concepts like 'facts' and 'knowledge' may be a little difficult to comprehend to creationists, I don't see why that should stop the 99.9% of religious people and non-religious people alike from discussing it here.

doctoremma

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

As I said before, this thread has gone off topic.

Do you have any intention of answering my questions to you re: transitional fossils?

Did you even look at the Wiki entry. Here it is again if you missed it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

What do you think of the Archaeopteryx fossil? Does it fulfil your criteria for a transitional fossil? If not, why not?

monosharp

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

As I said before, this thread has gone off topic.

Evolution vs Nonsense creationism is the topic of this thread.

I have no wish to have discussions with people who exhibit superiority complexes and who have a habit of ridiculing members,there is no point to endure another torrent of snide remarks.

So let me get this straight;

Step 1. You made a post saying Evolution is wrong.
Step 2. Someone contradicted your post with actual evidence.
Step 3. Your upset because you now have no argument against reality.

RepublicanEagle

monosharp wrote: »

You see the funny thing about science is that generally the basic principles of it are not that hard to fathom, so while you may consider us enlightened, actual knowledge of Evolution and basic science is well within the grasp of almost all people.

Although I understand that concepts like 'facts' and 'knowledge' may be a little difficult to comprehend to creationists, I don't see why that should stop the 99.9% of religious people and non-religious people alike from discussing it here.

I was a good science student back in secondary school,you think I am not aware of such things?Perhaps you think I live in a cave somewhere in the North Pole?I have no problem with discussing and debating,however I will not bother with a certain segment of the members here,as I have already explained why.

RepublicanEagle

monosharp wrote: »

Evolution vs Nonsense creationism is the topic of this thread.



So let me get this straight;

Step 1. You made a post saying Evolution is wrong.
Step 2. Someone contradicted your post with actual evidence.
Step 3. Your upset because you now have no argument against reality.

Assume I am scientifically illiterate,you probably already jumped to that conclusion based on your attitude, I would imagine.Define and explain Evolution to me,if you don't mind.

doctoremma

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

I was a good science student back in secondary school,you think I am not aware of such things?Perhaps you think I live in a cave somewhere in the North Pole?I have no problem with discussing and debating,however I will not bother with a certain segment of the members here,as I have already explained why.

Well, perhaps at the very least we have all realised that it is not appropriate to begin a scientific debate with "smells like BS"

Now, transitional fossils. It's not a platform from which I am about to jump in and try to tear you down - it's not a specialist subject for me and there are others here who are far more knowledgeable.

What do you think about Archaeopteryx?

monosharp

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

I was a good science student back in secondary school,you think I am not aware of such things?Perhaps you think I live in a cave somewhere in the North Pole?I have no problem with discussing and debating,however I will not bother with a certain segment of the members here,as I have already explained why.

So please explain how a 'good science student' can possibly think there are no transitional fossils or that evolution has never been observed ? those were your points right ? The ones which were .. eh wrong!

doctoremma

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Define and explain Evolution to me,if you don't mind.

Oh come one, people write textbooks on this. Wouldn't it be far more efficient to start by tackling your list of contradictions, assuming you have at least a basic knowledge?

Fanny Cradock

J C wrote: »

...Evolution was invented to support Atheism ... by the Ancient Greeks. The fact that a few 'liberal' Christians have also swallowed this unfounded Theory 'hook, line and sinker' doesn't in any way make it any more valid ... but crucially, it does provide Atheists and their Anti-God agenda with easy and uncontested access to these liberals' children ...
... and they then wonder when their children stop going to church!!!!

Let's stick to the argument at hand! Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Evolution is just evolution. Darwin new that.Yellow card for messing.

General note

There has been an increased amount of silliness and heated exchanges over the last few pages. Play nice, folks.

RepublicanEagle

doctoremma wrote: »

What do you think about Archaeopteryx?

Sorry,but you must be more specific regarding the question.

RepublicanEagle

monosharp wrote: »

So please explain how a 'good science student' can possibly think there are no transitional fossils or that evolution has never been observed ?

I am sure a lot of 16 year old science students would know about that:rolleyes:

Regarding observation,I admit that in response to the hostility here ,I lost my composure,and know that is incorrect.Anyway,I see you still continue to resort to personal remarks,a bit pathetic.Anyway,please answer my question on Evolution,do not avoid it,I am giving you an opportunity to..............shine:D

iUseVi

^^

RepublicEagle == DogmaticLefty? :eek:

monosharp

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

I am sure a lot of 16 year old science students would know about that:rolleyes:

Regarding observation,I admit that in response to the hostility here ,I lost my composure,and know that is incorrect.Anyway,I see you still continue to resort to personal remarks,a bit pathetic.Anyway,please answer my question on Evolution,do not avoid it,I am giving you an opportunity to..............shine:D

From wikipedia;

In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. Evolution has therefore been described as "descent with modification". Although the changes produced in a single generation are normally small, the accumulation of these differences over time can cause substantial changes in a population, causing the emergence of new species.[1] Similarities among species suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor through this process of gradual divergence.

RepublicanEagle

iUseVi wrote: »

^^

RepublicEagle == DogmaticLefty? :eek:

Huh?

RepublicanEagle

monosharp wrote: »

From wikipedia;

In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. Evolution has therefore been described as "descent with modification". Although the changes produced in a single generation are normally small, the accumulation of these differences over time can cause substantial changes in a population, causing the emergence of new species.[1] Similarities among species suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor through this process of gradual divergence.

Is it visible and has it been observed in multicellular organisms such as humans,besides micro-organisms and single cell organisms?

RepublicanEagle

iUseVi wrote: »

^^

RepublicEagle == DogmaticLefty? :eek:

Do you care to explain your post?

Sam Vimes

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

As I said before, this thread has gone off topic.I have no wish to have discussions with people who exhibit superiority complexes and who have a habit of ridiculing members,there is no point to endure another torrent of snide remarks.

That's it. When you're proven wrong with a few seconds of googling and some wikipedia links, insult the people who provided the links. That'll make you right!

Seriously mate, either respond to the links I provided proving your statements about evolution wrong or retract your statements. It's not our fault that you don't understand evolution and it doesn't show any kind of superiority complex to point out your errors.