Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory

I was "open minded" for more than 25 years. Just let me clarify something: being open minded is not the same as being biased. I did analyzed the religious argument, from many perspectives. None made any sense at all.

The christian argument: I'm a piece of shit, but the being that created me as a piece of shit, commands me to do so and so and I'll no longer be a piece of shit, although I will. He even sacrificed himself, to himself, in order to appease himself because I'm a piece of shit.

The muslim argument: The invisible dude in the sky is amazing! We should annihilate anyone who disagree because we should submit to his amazement. And the only one who can tell us how to submit the proper way, is a pedophile war lord who lived a thousand years ago.

The jewish argument: We know squat. We should do more to know more, but we can't know more because we are squat. But compared to the rest we are way better, we are chosen and perfect, even thou we are squat, because the invisible dude in the sky supposedly said so to a dude in a mountain or something. But not so sure about it.

The budhist argument: There is no argument, there is no me, there is nothing. There is only what we say there is, but then again, there will be something and since there is nothing, nothing happened. And don't eat meat.


Religion is a mind poison.

EDIT: Forgot to ask: Are you open minded for the possibility the universe was created by pixies instead of the god of the bible?

Last Edited by MaybeTrollingUAgain on 01/04/2019 08:29 AM

This reconciles the Bible to cosmological time.

The 6000 years in the bible is after the first 6 days. They are written in the bible from different perspectives.

If you have an issue with the work take it up with the scientist and the science he used which according to you can always be trusted.

[link to www.geraldschroeder.com]

Why do you keep throwing religion at me???

Not once have I claimed the Bible is right, all I have done is ask you to provide the same evidence that you ask of others.

The bible is a book. Why would it be proof of anything? Why not the Vedas, Tao Te Ching, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Buddhist Sutras or even Harry Potter?

Got it, all books are worthless and can't be used to prove anything or as proof of anything.

unless of course you were looking for a book to prove that the book was printed/published/existed :-)

Again, the dishonesty of putting words on others mouths. Classic christian apologetic. Combined to your lies(ie you're graduated), this makes you a horrible person. Let me ask you this: Suppose you find out somehow, a proof that god doesn't exist and religion is all bullshit. Then what? What would this information mean to you?

It is all he can do.

Everyone that does not share his belief (which isn't a belief, everything else is a belief, but whatever he believes is not a belief) is automatically a churchgoing religitard with no education and a blind belief in any god(s).

You won't get anything new out of him, he'll just throw technological advancements and erv's until you give up the dialogue. Somehow this is how he thinks he wins dialogues, just like his partner in crime from australia.

'We have computers, look at the internet, look at programmed software, look at antibiotics, look at ervs!'

Very compelling arguments, as to be expected from someone that actually believes he is the direct inbred offspring of apes.

On top of the that, he is the alpha that is critical and is allowed to be critical. All of us non-believers of evolution theory are just religious conformist plebs without critical thinking skills.

Just go to the base of things, he believes non intelligence led to everything, others believe intelligence led to everything.

Interesting fact is he will defend this position/belief of non intelligence with, ofcourse, his intelligence.

For science

Given you and another have both said Abiogenesis is unproven do you have another suggestion as how we are here??

If not, are you believing in Abiogenesis, do you have faith that it will be proven true?

Why wouldn't I bring up ERV's? They are incredible evidence, and you have absolutely no response, other than to whine about how I keep bringing up ERVs.

It's funny. You're like a criminal trying to defend himself by saying: you keep bringing up video footage of me doing the crime over and over, as though that wins the dialogue. It does win the dialogue! Only in your twisted mind does evidence not count as evidence.

P.S: It's creationism that teaches you that you're inbred. Nice projection though.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/04/2019 10:19 PM

So you are a Creationist, why did you pretend you aren't? As for your question, unlike your beliefs, the validity of abiogenesis doesn't determine whether or not I go to Heaven, so I don't have faith, hope or any kind of desire for it to be correct. I just follow the evidence.

There are two possibilities: Life was created by natural processes, or it wasn't.

How on earth do you get that I am a creationist from that?

faith
/feɪθ/
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence; More


Why do you guys keep jumping at religion? Faith is not solely about religion.

Last Edited by newtome on 01/04/2019 10:38 PM

The only people that ever ask if I have 'faith' in scientific theories are Creationists. They do this to try and bring science down to their level. I suspect you are doing the same.

Religion is already at the centre of this entire discussion, because it's Creationists that are leading the attack against evolution. Practically nobody rejects evolution for non-religious reasons.

and not once have I rejected evolution, in fact I said it can be consistent with the Bible.

I didn't know that knowing a small amount of the most common aspects of the Bible suddenly bakes someone a Creationist or religious nut,

I am just asking for the same standard of evidence that is being asked of others, I am not supporting the Bible or claiming it is correct.

It can be consistent with the Bible? Why does that matter? Unless you begin with the assumption that the Bible is correct. Which you probably do.

You've been given evidence. Far more than you'll ever get from Creationists.

Do you have problems with religious people or only creationists??

The issue isn't the evidence you have given but why it still falls short of what you demand from others?

I have a problem when ever religious people try to mislead the public and retard scientific progress.

What do you mean it falls short? My standards are fair, I don't demand more from others than I do for myself.

Who is trying to mislead or retard?? Me?? Einstein regarding the Priest's Big Bang Theory?

You demand proof of God having created man yet you can't offer proof of anything else. How about being honest regarding that?

I am not religious, I do not claim we are created by a God or only here because of a God. If you can tell me how or why we are here then tell me but be prepared to also demonstrate that it is real and true.

Who is trying to mislead or retard? Creationists like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. The church when they imprisoned Galileo. The Church when they burned Giordano Bruno alive. To name a few.

I don't demand proof, I demand evidence. Creationists can't provide evidence that their god even exists, let alone that it created man. Let alone that it created man in the way described in the book of Genesis. All they have is the Bible.

On the other hand, I can give you mountains of evidence for evolution. More than that, I can prove that evolution happens. I can prove that speciation happens. I can prove that natural selection and beneficial mutations exist. With the fossil record, I can prove that animals have changed over time. And with ERVs, I can arguably prove that our DNA was derived from that of the apes.

If you want to argue about evolution I don't know why you are spending so much time seeming to challenge me?

What are you talking about? You just said I demand proof from Creationists but I can't provide proof for my position. You accused me of a double standard and I refuted you.

They also say man came from the work of God which you dispute yet can offer no better alternative. Simply saying man evolved while ignoring where life came from is disingenuous.

That doesn't make any sense.

First, I don't have to offer an alternative in order to dispute a claim. The burden of proof is on the positive assertion. Basic logic. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Second, I have given you an alternative. Nature. We know nature exists, we don't know that the supernatural exists. Therefor Occam's razor suggests that a natural explanation is most likely. And history has shown this to be the case.

And I'm disingenuous? That's ridiculous. I don't have to tell you where electricity came from in order to be an electrician. We can see evolution happening right now. I think abiogenesis is probably the answer to where life came from, but I don't know for certain. Nothing disingenuous about that.

The great beauty of Atheists is that they have a lack of belief, they believe in nothing and have no conviction about anything other than saying they don't know any answers but they demand proof from anyone who offers one, unless it is science and then they give it a much lower bar to jump. The moment you say there is no God then you are not an Atheist as you now believe in something, a lack of God.

Just because nature exists does not make it an all encompassing answer to every unknown. To assume otherwise says you are believing that Nature is the answer to the exclusion of all else and suddenly you are no longer an Atheist even though the question of where nature, the planets etc etc came from in the first place remains unanswered. Next stop is a belief in Gaia.

If you want to take the stance that only one side needs to prove something then it is no longer a discussion, all you are doing is tearing a group apart for no net benefit whatsoever.

The following is a statement by the Catholic church who have made many contributions to science.
Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. ... Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.

By all means challenge religion and claims but at least offer something in it's place.

:giorgiothread:

Nonsense. Atheists believe in pretty much everything you do except god. I don't give science a lower bar, you just accuse me of doing so. There could be a god, but as with all things, I require evidence to believe it.

History has shown many times that things people think are supernatural have a natural explanation. The opposite has never happened. Cosmologists have explained how planets form. Evolution happens whether or not there is a god.

This isn't just my stance. This is logic. The burden of proof is on the positive claim. If I tell you I can shoot lasers out of my eyes, my claim is not true by default until the moment you prove it false. The default stance is: not-true.

I don't really value what the Catholic church has to say about anything. You can say that science is uncovering god's work, that doesn't make it true.

Oh, and I am offering something. Science. I'm offering reason and evidence in place of appeals to divine authority.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/05/2019 03:11 AM

By definition Atheists do not have a disbelief in God.

So you accept there may not be Abiogenesis? There is about as much evidence of God as Abiogenesis.

My point about the Catholic Church is that they have contributed much to science over the years including the Big Bang Theory.

Sorry, saying the answer is science is meaningless without being able to say what specifically.

Last Edited by newtome on 01/05/2019 03:14 AM

I'm not convinced that Yahweh (the supernatural being depicted in the Bible) actually exists. Call me what you want.

I don't know for sure that abiogenesis happened, I've told you this multiple times, but I think it's currently the best explanation.

'There is about as much evidence of God as Abiogenesis.'

I don't think that's true. Abiogenesis is a process where microscopic self replicating molecules form through natural processes. Eventually leading to something like a cell. Nothing about this requires magic, or the supernatural, and we have already observed many of the stages required for this to occur.

On the other hand, God is a supernatural agent with magical powers. People can't even agree on how to define what god is, and according to some it's impossible to detect or observe.

"My point about the Catholic Church is that they have contributed much to science over the years including the Big Bang Theory."

No, individual catholics have contributed to science, but their religious views have not. The church itself has often been a detriment to science.

Sorry, saying the answer is science is meaningless without being able to say what specifically.

Science is a method for finding knowledge, I advocate this over religion which dictates truth by divine authority. I've given you specifics. Evolution can explain the origin of new species and abiogenesis is a possible explanation for the origin of life.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/05/2019 03:39 AM

You describe Abiogenesis in a way that is necessary to justify life coming from inorganic matter. As possible as it may be just because it is an obvious answer doesn't make it so.


Incorrect, there were much more than individual Catholics, the Church funded them, and the facilities they used, for the sole purpose of knowledge. I suggest you do some homework including their work even today.


If you think all religion dictates truth by divine authority then you do so much of religion a great disservice. I do not deny that many followers may appeal to a divine authority. Again, saying something can explain something does not in and of itself show evidence or proof that it is so.

Correct, which is why I said I don't know. Still a better explanation than 'my personal god did it with magic.'

Ok. Granted, the catholic church may have assisted with scientific research. But the actual tenants and ideology of Catholicism have not contributed, they have been detrimental. We didn't look in the Bible and pray to come up with the big bang theory, we used science. The religion of the scientist was irrelevant.

The Bible is taught to be the infallible word of god. It can't be questioned or criticized, and you can burn in hell simply for not believing it. That's an appeal to divine authority.

"Again, saying something can explain something does not in and of itself show evidence or proof that it is so."

I never said that. I've given you evidence.