Delusions of Evolution

Norcalblogs.com ^ | April 04, 2009 | by OneVike

[Nathan Zachary]

It is with out a doubt that a majority of Americans believe “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1. Unfortunately, most who believe these words cannot answer the questions raised by the thousands of fossils that archeologist's have dug up and claim are millions of years old. ...

[Ichneumon]

["I’ll even stipulate that humans may be descended from apes (evidence says its highly likely)']

No it doesn't. You have more DNA in common with a snake than you do a monkey.

Horse manure. I see that the anti-evolutionists' habit of "just making s**t up" hasn't lost its allure... Well, I can understand how you might have to resort to that for lack of any other option, when mountains of facts and the evidence and the real science overwhelmingly comes down on the opposite side of where you wish it would, and has confirmed the validity of evolutionary biology a vast number of times in dozens of multiply independent cross-confirming ways...

A wise man once said, "never argue with a fool, bet him money". Nathan, I'm challenging you to a $1000 bet right here and now that what you said is dead flat wrong. Please, oh please, take me up on it. Or just run away, and by doing so admit you're leading astray your fellow Freepers by posting totally unreliable stuff on subjects you don't really know much about other than what you've gathered from grossly unreliable anti-science propaganda sites (you know, the kind that falsely claim that human have "more DNA in common" with snakes than monkeys).

Come on, show that you have confidence in the anti-evolution stuff you spew by accepting my bet, then winning it by demonstrating its validity (or losing the bet by failing to support your claim within seven days). If you need help (and you'll need a *LOT* of it), you can examine and compare the complete DNA sequences of both huumans and rhesus monkeys at this link.

Or run away from the challenge and make it clear to everyone that you really don't have any confidence in the nonsense you post on this topic.

I've had it with the way the anti-evolution hacks spew blatant falsehoods and grossly fallacious arguments all the time because they know that they won't suffer any negative consequences from it. Call me old-fashioned, but I've got a greater respect for truth than that. So you're being called on it, Nathan -- accept my bet and let the chips fall where they may, or retract your out-and-out falsehood and apologize for misleading your fellow Freepers.

Your move.

[ga medic]

“condemns you to H-E-double-toothpicks to many on this thread.”

Fortunately for me, it is highly unlikely that anyone here on this thread has any input on whether I should be condemned. Not saying it won’t happen. Just pretty sure that it won’t have anything to do with the people posting here :)

[freedumb2003]

>>Your translation, ie, understanding of my words is not a surprise. You spin God’s also, to suit yourself.

Your words are God’s? Who knew? I know — you did!

>>BTW, you are not ‘free’ from ‘dumb’.

Once again, you are very Christlike. Thank you.

[SnakeDoctor]

>> Theistic evolution denies God is all knowing and all powerful.

This is not necessarily true.

>> If death was around before Adam sinned then death did not enter with sin.

Human death entered with Adam’s sin. Non-human death preceded the original sin. Pre-Adam evolutionary death would’ve necessarily been non-human. Thus, evolution is not necessarily inconsistent with this Biblical principle.

SnakeDoc

[freedumb2003]

>>That’s a plus. I am to be like Him

We can all tell by your posts how you emulate Him.

[presently no screen name]

the only one you are deluding, is yourself. No one here on these forums on this topic is ever going to change their belief in creation or stop believing that evolution is a washed-up, has-been, totally debunked theory that has become a cult for a few who are desperate to find anything to not believe in the Truth.

A truth bump!

[OneVike]

Because he believed and followed Satan's lie/deception.

Actually, Eve believed Satan's lie. Adam chose Eve over God willingly. Thus Adam rejected God over Eve. That is why God told Eve her desire would be for him.

What the Hebrew actually means is, Eve would have desire to rule over man. That has been the eternal battle between men and women. Women have always tried to be in control, I generalize but I think you get my gist.

[freedumb2003]

>>> ID doesn't invalidate engineering unless God was actively tinkering with machinery and making machines break for no reason. Well, actually that does happen, which is why we over-engineer things! And then there's brittle fracture, which appeared to be an Act of God for years until it was explained by people that didn't just accept theories as fact. I invite you to reread and research the definition of a scientific theory. For example, there is a Theory of Gravity, BEHIND the observed phenomenon of Gravity, that is much less understood than TToE. >>ID actually says that God used the physical laws of the universe to make his creations. If God was to make a piece of steel break because of the laws of physics and metallurgy, would that really be an act of God, or is it just physics as defined by God, or is it just physics? That is the question. No, it doesn't. ID is merely creationism in disguise. It says tat when things get too complicated for people to figure it out a "Designer" intervenes. As far whether God or another Designer is responsible for the whole thing, that is philosophic/theological area of discussion -- not a scientific one.

[presently no screen name]

We can all tell by your posts how you emulate Him.

And who are you emulating?

[freedumb2003]

>>A truth bump!

Bumps do well in echo chambers.

[freedumb2003]

>>And who are you emulating?

I try to teach people and, with a minimum of insults, lead them. I do not pretend to be holy. I certainly do not denigrate those who understand things I do not.

You decide.

[presently no screen name]

Yes. I know Adam listened to Eve and blamed God as not to look guilty. It was that woman you gave me! Things haven't changed much.

Women have always tried to be in control

I understand. Perhaps Adam wanted to please Eve. Humans want to be man pleases before pleasing God. We are warned about that in His Word. There is always one trying to manipulate (witchcraft) another to get their way. God must be number one! Wonder who the evo's will blame for their deception come judgment day? Darwin? their professors? In any case, it won't matter - it will be too late.

[Big_Monkey]

"We are already falling far behind (and are becoming the laughingstock of the world) from our conflating theology and science. If your country isn’t respected in a scientific area, then you won’t be either.

I can't believe that in 2009 a large portion of the population wants to re-litigate Scopes v. State

Our youth are approaching scientific illiteracy. It's shameful that our education systems has produced students that can grow into adults that believe in a mythological story over reams, volumes and libraries of empirical science.

I went to Catholic grade school, high school, college and graduate school - all at institutions that taught the scientific theory of evolution and that theory alone in their science classes. But, it wasn't until I joined the military that I realized how many people have abandoned logical thought, critical reasoning and scientific fact for a simple story that explains an incredibly complicated process; all in the name of some misguided attempt to maintain fidelity to a religious belief, no matter how factually inaccurate that belief may be.

As you point out, it doesn't bode well for the continuation of America in a scientific leadership position. It's very, very sad.

[ga medic]

“t make no sense that God could go against the very laws of this materialistic Universe you claim He is limited by?”

No one said that God had any limitations at all. Clearly, God can do what he wants, because he is God. We are not. Therefore, we must seek to understand how the universe works by using the tool of science. Through science, we can heal the sick (sometimes) and keep people safe and healthy. Since we cannot perform miracles, it is all that we have. The order and structure of the universe is a wonderful gift from God. He has also given us the intelligence to make sense of this order, and to use it to our benefit.

It is important to always remember that we are not God, and we do not know how he works, and why he does what he does. We pray for answers, and knowledge and the ability to help others, but he is the One who can make it happen.

Science is a gift from God. He alone determines how and when we understand his creation. This does not limit him in any way, because he is God. He has no limits.

[goat granny]

Reread your post at 190 “Why are you denigrating the study of the Bible” At no time did I denigrate the study of the bible. Your accusation is only your opinion. At no time do I say anything derogatory about the bible, only some of the opinions that people have and then they denigrate those of different opinions... Too many people think that if one criticizes their interpretation of the bible it is somehow a criticism of the bible...It seems that some hold in high re guard their own opinions on what the bible says, but that is no surprise as did the Pharisee in Jesus time...

[Bryanw92]

ID is merely creationism in disguise. It says tat when things get too complicated for people to figure it out a "Designer" intervenes. As far whether God or another Designer is responsible for the whole thing, that is philosophic/theological area of discussion -- not a scientific one.

That's a good point. I can accept that. Of course, that's the basis for all religion, which takes us back to "you can't dispute the theory of evolution unless you can prove the existence of God."

It also takes me back to my statement that the truthfulness of TToE has no effect on people's lives since we aren't likely to evolve in our lifetimes, nor are we going to devolve to apes if the theory is disproven. In the end, you either believe or you don't.

But I cannot figure out why you hold creationism/ID to such an impossible standard, yet claim to believe that Jesus died for your sins. How does this fit into your standards of scientific proof? If I was going to dispute anything, I would find it easier to believe that an omnipotent diety would create a race of intelligent playthings to observe and manipulate than the idea that he would walk among us and let us murder him to absolve us of sin.

[OneVike]

No, death was not around until the fall of man. The scriptures are clear on that.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—(Romans 5:12 NKJV)

If you look at the Greek definition used for the word world you will find it contains everything God created. The verse could just as well have been written, "just as through one man sin entered Creation.

Now sin did spread to man and was infected by sin that he brought into the world. It is a picture of how we may directly sin against another, but in time that sin will spread to us because of our evil actions.

A good example is how David sinned against Uriah. He slept with Bathsheba, eventually had Uriah killed. God took the child from their adulterous affair, and in time David's sin even spread to his whole house through his sons.

So you will find that death entered after Adam sinned not before.

[goat granny]

My father aways accused me of “kicking a dead horse” in arguments... I guess its in my genetic makeup. I seem to do it alot on this type of thread...But then I always liked beating my head against a brick wall...:O)

[what's up]

I saw that you were sceptical of Vike's recitation of what the Hebrew says. I don't know why your immediate reaction was negativity...his was an interesting observation and is profound if true.

It's an opportunity to investigate the claim personally, yet you seemed immediately cynical and dismissive. I have no reason to think that the number of which he spoke is NOT in the Hebrew.

There's nothing wrong with looking at the Bible for oneself along with the original languages and finding things which perhaps even one's leader has not discovered.

[Nathan Zachary]

" You misunderstand my argument. I you have a valid scientific alternative to TToE, please present it. There is room for philosophical dissent, but no one has yet to present an scientific alternative.

I just did. You just refuse to even acknowledge it. As I previously stated, it is significalty more valid than TTOE because it has more proofs based on scientific observation than TTOE. You consistently proof on these threads, that no matter what, TTOE is the only THEORY, and yes, TTOE is ONLY a theory, without a single scrap of SCIENTIFIC evidence I might add, to add any credibility to it.

YET, you insist that this THEORY should be accepted as SCIENCE, when it is nothing but an unproven theory.

TTOE is NOT science!! It is not A science. it is a THEORY ONLY. THE sciences, do not rely on TTOE for ANYTHING, except perhaps for some of the THEORIES presented in geology, THEORIES which were put in place to support TTOE, which is why of all the sciences, geology is one of the most seriously flawed sciences constantly being reviewed and updated as older theories in support of TTOE are thrown out because observation over time and new discovery does not support them.