How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?

From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/4/09 | Purple Mountains

[CottShop]

Multiple Errors!

[[False. The theory of evolution is based on overwhelming evidence.]]

Nope- sorry- False. ONLY microevolution has “Overwhelming” evidence to support it- Macroevolution has zero

[[False. Creationism is a belief, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. The former is based on divine revelation and scripture. The latter is based on evidence.]]

False! Creationism has scientific evidence to support it while Macroevolution has nothign but beleif in a supposed process that has no scientific support

[[While a layman may see a theory as a guess or something similar, scientists see a theory as the current best explanation for a given set of facts.]]

Correction: While a layman may see a theory as a guess or something similar, scientists with an a priori belief in Macroevolution see the Hypothesis as the current best explanation for a given set of assumptions.

[[Scientists prefer that only science be taught as science. Ideas based on divine revelation and scripture, rather than scientific evidence, do not qualify as science.]]

Well good news for you then because the scientific evidence supports Special Creation- Glad we at least agree on something- I guess you’ll now be pulling for Creationism to be taught in schools instead of hte religious beleief in Macroevolution eh? (Actually I’d prefer ID be taught- but that’s anotehr ballgame)

[[Theories are always subject to modification or falsification if new data arise that cannot be explained.]]

Good hting ya’ll leave yourself a massive out- because hte science is showing Macroevolution to be wrong- Phew!

[[Second, the world’s largest religion, Roman Catholicism, has accepted science in general, and the theory of evolution in particular, as being accurate. It is only the fundamentalist religions (including Biblical literalists and Muslims) who are unable to accept the findings of science.]]

The pope can beleive little green men fathered footballs for all I care- unless he or anyone beleiving in Macroevolution can provide hte evidence to back it up- they are still practicing a religious belief- it woudkl appear hte pope has traded in one belief for yet another- But in NO way does his acceptance of it make it any more valid- You might think so, but hten again, you accept anyhtign that seems to bolster your particular worldview whether it has evidnece behind it or not.

[[When one accepts the Bible as the ultimate authority, and is required to accept every word literally as true, one has abandoned the scientific method. ]]

We do? Oh please expalin, this aught to be incredibly rich and delicious-

[[At that point one’s opinions on science are no longer meaningful, or even useful, to the conduct of science.]]

you know, You apparently just can’t help yourself can you? Are you so full of loathing that you can’t even write soemthign without belittling those who dissagree with you? Particularly ID folks? I’ve expalined to you that Christian ID organization’s own particular statements of faith first of all do NOT stand in as the ultimate authority for ID, and secondly, Even their statements of faith have absolutely NOTHING to do with precluding htem from scientific investigation, because what we DO find in nature is that nature follows exactly what was written- It is folks liek you that deny this that can’t seem to get over you snotty superiority complex long enough to even ceede this point. When you have evidencel inking Dissimilar KINDS, and can falsify Discontinuity, then and only then can you state that Creationism has no place in science- until then, your little taunts are both unprofessional and childish, and I’ve received personal messages here attestign to the fact that people can’t stand arguing with you because of your unprofessionalism and childish taunts. Everytime you post something, it’s the same old disproven crap time and time again. It just nmever ceases with you!

[Jaime2099]

False. The theory of evolution is based on overwhelming evidence.

You fail to read my posts closely, I said HUMAN EVOLUTION. Human Evolution has no evidence and is a false religion based on the beliefs of Darwin that was founded in order to disprove Creationism.

"Creationism is a belief, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory The latter is based on evidence."

You seem to completely ignore my dozens of posts were I clearly state HUMAN EVOLUTION. Human Evolution is a belief and is not founded based on evidence.

"The status of theory is only achieved after withstanding multiple tests and making successful predictions"

Thus you have proven that Human Evolution is not a scientific theory since it cannot withstand tests nor can it successfully predict anything. Then it must be a belief, correct?

"Scientists prefer that only science be taught as science. Ideas based on divine revelation and scripture, rather than scientific evidence, do not qualify as science. This should be obvious to all!"

I disagree, many scientists allow Human Evolution to be taught as sound theory because of their hatred for Creationism. That is obvious to me. Whether Creationism should be included in science is a whole other ball game. But if Human Evolution is, then Creationism should be as well since they are both beliefs.

In short, theories are supported by the data or they are not--but they are never "proven."

Thank you for that, many evolutionist will not admit that. There is no data for Human Evolution in the first place so I guess it doesn't fall in this category.

"Second, the world's largest religion, Roman Catholicism, has accepted science in general, and the theory of evolution in particular, as being accurate. It is only the fundamentalist religions (including Biblical literalists and Muslims) who are unable to accept the findings of science."

Not true. There is no way that Catholics accept Human Evolution. They may accept plant evolution and maybe animal evolution, but not Human Evolution. Science has not found anything about Human Evolution and that is why I and others refuse to accept its false religion's lies.

"Finally, I cannot accept that fundamentalists such as yourself are an accurate judge of what science is or should be. When one accepts the Bible as the ultimate authority, and is required to accept every word literally as true, one has abandoned the scientific method. At that point one's opinions on science are no longer meaningful, or even useful, to the conduct of science."

So basically what you are saying is that your an atheist. If you believe in the religion of Human Evolution, then your opinions on science are no longer meaningful or useful to the conduct of science.

[CottShop]

[[Don’t try to fool us. You distrust scientists right up until they even come close to disagreeing with your religious dogma.]]

Unlike you Coyoteman I mean what I say!

[[Then you undergo a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde change and really start frothing at the keyboard.]]

And you’re a professional Coyote? That sounded third gradish!

[[You simply will not accept scientific evidence when it appears to contradict your religious beliefs.]]

That is a lie Coyote- I do NOT accept science that comes with strings attached- Again, I mean what I say- I’ve investigated many aspects of Macroevolution and have foudn htem severely wanting for evidence-

[[(Don’t even bother posting ten or twenty disjointed and poorly spelled replies. I’m going to bed and won’t be reading them.]]

Atta boy- You just fire off snotty insult after insult- then run to bed and hide- perfect- at least your consistent

[Jaime2099]

I see you are engaged in sophistry.

You can mock me all you want, it proves nothing.

Faith(answers.com):
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Loyalty to a person or thing

3. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Looks like a faith to me.

[Alamo-Girl]

That question has haunted many over the years. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[metmom]

Which version of creationism?

The one from the Bible.

The one that was widely taught in public schools across this country for centuries before the ACLU and its god hating cohorts pushed it out.

[DevNet]

Does that mean we can teach the non-literal version that Catholics like?

[DevNet]

You appear to assume that only those who agree with you are brothers - sisters in Christ - why is that?

[CottShop]

[[You appear to assume that only those who agree with you are brothers - sisters in Christ - why is that?]]

Perhaps because they obeyed God, and asked Christ for forgiveness of sins, and thereby were offered the free gift of salvation ushering htem into the heavenly kingdom of God and His family

[Just mythoughts]

Really? The Holy Spirit came up the Virgin Mary, so Joseph had nothing to do with Jesus’ real lineage. Jesus was in the House of David but was the Son of God.

Mary was from the House of David and of Levi... I did not say Joseph had anything to do with the conception of Christ.

“Noah and his family had perfect pedigree” Um ... who in the human race did not? were they not all descended from Adam and Eve?

Why was Noah elected with his family to be 'saved', and why was it that the Heavenly Father repented for having made flesh man? Meaning why was there a flood to wipe out those unnatural giants?

But if it was all just Adam and Eve and Cain ‘knew’ his wife, where did she come from. An un-named sister? Maybe some of those holes in Genesis are an indication that maybe part of the Genesis story is metaphor. Ponder that.

If Cain was Adam's son why isn't Cain listed in the Adam's genealogy in Genesis 5? And to read Genesis literally there are two different days of creation of people described. Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 2:7. Eve would have had to have several partners to bring forth all different peoples that are upon this earth. But remember God said Let Us make them in OUR image and God said His creation was GOOD. But that tree of the knowledge of good and evil sure has planted the seeds of hate since the creation of flesh man.

It is most curious to hear these that reject the Heavenly Father, claim creationists to be 'literal' Bible proponents when in fact the literal reading of what Moses penned does not fit what they claim.

[NicknamedBob]

Well, now. It has become clear to me after reading this thread extensively, that I am going to have to modify my views on the matter of evolution versus direct creation.

I still believe that most of us have evolved. But it is just so obvious now that a lot of people are really pieces of work.

[metmom]

When one accepts the Bible as the ultimate authority, and is required to accept every word literally as true, one has abandoned the scientific method.

So who is it that requires accepting every word of the Bible as *literally true*?

For that matter, explain exactly what you mean by that term.

[Alamo-Girl]

You appear to assume that only those who agree with you are brothers - sisters in Christ - why is that?

Brothers and sisters in Christ recognize each other because we are indwelled by the Spirit, we have a common mind and language.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. - I Corinthians 2:6-16

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:9

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43

To God be the glory!

[DevNet]

One can not determine all of what you listed from words posted on the Internet.

[metmom]

You simply will not accept scientific evidence when it appears to contradict your religious beliefs.

Because it's more than likely that the science that's accepted as *right* today is going to be wrong tomorrow, or next week, or next year......

Science isn't about truth, it can't be proved. Science changes as new data comes in. That means that what was accepted one day can be suddenly wrong the next.

So why,when there's dispute between science and religion, is it ALWAYS assumed that science is right by default? And religion is always wrong by default?

I don't suppose that it occurred to you that it could be the SCIENCE that's wrong?

[DevNet]

“Brothers and sisters in Christ recognize each other because we are indwelled by the Spirit, we have a common mind and language.”

If that is correct how do you explain all the differing interpretations of Christianity? For examples Catholics have very few issues with Evolution - do not believe the Earth to be the center of the universe or insist on a less than 10k year old Earth.

[DevNet]

Has your religion been consistent for the past 300+ years?

[metmom]

Funny that so many who reject the Bible as the ultimate authority are willing to accept science as the ultimate authority, even though it’s proved itself to be unreliable in producing any consistent truths, or any truths at all.

Science is subject to revision as new evidence comes in. That means that the conclusions made on the previous (perhaps faulty) evidence were wrong. And they used those wrong conclusions to what? Demonstrate that someone else is wrong?

I would just love to have someone explain to me how one can use something so likely to be wrong (science)to prove that something else is wrong (religion).

[metmom]

I read Genesis 1 & 2 in both the Catholic and Protestant Bibles and they said the same thing.

[DevNet]

The interpretations vary wildly which is something I am sure you are aware of so why the transparent attempt to mislead by omission?